DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 1/2/2026 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been reviewed, and deemed not persuasive. On page 9, Applicant addressed the finding of Official Notice with regard to claim 1. The noticed fact, as presented in the rejection, was, “when making access decisions, Official Notice is taken that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide feedback to the requesting party and to notify accessed resources of any changes.” Applicant broadly asserts, without referring to the noticed fact, that the Official Notice is not unquestionably demonstrated. However, Applicant never provides any actual question as to the well-known nature of the noticed fact. If Applicant believes that the providing of feedback to a requesting party and accessed resource of changes in access permissions was not well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, Applicant should directly state this. As in MPEP 2144.03 C, to adequately traverse such a finding, Applicant must point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not well-known. In this case, a good faith statement that Applicant does not believe that “when making access decisions, it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide feedback to the requesting party and to notify accessed resources of any changes.” Applicant proceeds to argue on pages 10-11 that the prior art fails to teach or suggest subsequent to providing the user access to the requested application and responsive to the user failing to satisfy the access criteria as determined by the automated resource access manager, revoking automatically by the requester interface and without input from the approver, access to the requested application from the user. This argument cannot be deemed persuasive, as the Office Action clearly provided that this step is only required in one of the two main embodiments covered by the instant claim, the one where access is initially granted. O’Sullivan in view of Clauson also specifically provides for the initial denial of access, where this teaching would teach the instant method claim, as a whole. It was previously suggested that Applicant clearly limit the embodiments to those that would have the access initially granted, as a denial of access would mean that much of the instant claim steps would not be performed. Further, the addressing of the optional steps of the instant claim (the steps corresponding to the embodiments where access is initially granted) has been adjusted in light of Applicant’s amendment to these steps. However, as these steps are not actually required (such as when access is initially denied), this argument will not be addressed further here. In addition to any clarifications based on the adjustments to the explanations below, it is highly recommended that Applicant amend claim 1 be clearly limited to embodiments where the approver interface receives a granting of access, such as by removing references to “denial of access” from the instant claim. 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. Claim (s) 1-6 and 21-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0381629 (O’Sullivan) in view of US 2024/0289470 (Clauson) . With regard to claim 1, O’Sullivan discloses a method for automatically managing user access to resources of a communication system, the method comprising: receiving by a requester interface of an automated resource access manager a request by a user for access to a resource of the communication system, the access request communicated from a user equipment (UE) of the user to the requester interface (O’Sullivan: Figure 3 and Paragraph [0032]. A user requests access to a resource to the Crown Source Access Manager, which would be received from an interface of the requesters device.); providing automatically by an approver interface of the automated resource access manager the access request to a UE of an approver associated with the requested resource (O’Sullivan: Figure 3 and Paragraph [0031]. An approver is identified to approve the request.); receiving by the approver interface either a granting of access to the requested application or a denial of access to the requested application, the granting of access or denial of access communicated from the UE of the approver to the approver interface (O’Sullivan: Figure 3 and Paragraph [0031]. The approver would approve or deny the request using their device and corresponding interface.); providing by the requester interface a notification indicating the grant of access or the denial of access to the requested application, wherein the granting of access is conditioned on the user meeting a predefined access criteria (O’Sullivan: Figure 3 and Paragraph [0031]. The approver would grant or deny the request. Lacking detail of the nature of the condition, the approver approving the request would constitute such a condition. Further, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that standard business practice would have any approver’s decision, itself, be based on some criteria applied by the human approver.); and responsive to receiving by the approver interface the granting of access to the requested application, providing automatically, by the requester interface, the user access to the requested application in response to receiving by the approver the granting of access to the requested application (O’Sullivan: Figure 3 and Paragraphs [0031] and [0037]. When an approver approves the request, access would be granted.). O’Sullivan fails to disclose, but Clauson teaches: the requested resource comprising a requested application of the communication system (Clauson: Paragraph [0019]. The use of applications over a network were well-known in the art, and would be a typical type of resource that would require user authorization.); subsequent to providing the user access to the requested application, revoking automatically by the requester interface and without input from the approver, access to the requested application from the user (Clauson: Paragraphs [0070], [0031], and [0020] and Figure 6. An evaluation can be performed to determine if access is still appropriate, and making changes as necessary. Further, Clauson is based on access being given initially (such as in O’Sullivan) according to some requirements that the human approver would have applied, where such access is later deemed to be inappropriate, whether due to human error in approving or changes in the situation. Further, Clauson presents the presence of multiple administrators, where one of ordinary skill in the art would have known techniques to assign tasks to different operators, such that the same administrator would not necessarily receive the revocation task. Finally, Clauson provides an automated process in Figure 6, 603, which concludes with a remediation action, where such action can include access revocation (Clauson: Paragraph [0079]).). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to revoke access automatically in response to the user failing to satisfy applicable access criteria to reduce security risks (Clauson: Paragraph [0003]). Further, by having the resource be a requested application, the well-known access to hosted applications would be able to be authorized in accordance with O’Sullivan and reviewed in accordance with Clauson to ensure that such applications are hosted and provided in a secure manner. O’Sullivan in view of Clauson fails to teach, expressly, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches providing the notification granting access or denial of access to the UE of the user and providing by an access records manager of the automated resource access manager a notification to the requested application of the revocation of the access of the user to the requested application (More specifically, when making access decisions, Official Notice is taken that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide feedback to the requesting party and to notify accessed resources of any changes.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to both: provide the notification granting access or denial of access to the UE of the user to provide such feedback to the user, thus allowing the user to attempt to remedy any issues with the authorization or to know that the resource is now accessible, where without such feedback, the user would not know that any decision has been made; and to provide a notification of the revocation to the requested application to update the requested application to be current with the access restriction, where it is noted that Clauson is concerned with ensuring that access was actually removed (Clauson: Figure 7), where providing some notification to the application would ensure that the application would no longer accept access from the user. With regard to claim 2, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches providing by the access records manager a notification to the requested application identifying a cause of the revocation of access from the user to the requested application (more specifically, Official Notice is taken that when making changes to access, it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide some cause for the change.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a notification to the requested application identifying a cause of the revocation to provide better tracking of actions taken in the system, such that the actions can be appropriately logged and reviewed later (e.g. providing a code specifying that access was revoked based on automatic review would meet the requirements of the instant claim.). With regard to claim 3, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art teaches providing by the requester interface to the UE of the user a notification of the revocation of the access of the user to the requested application; and providing by the approver interface to the UE of the approver a notification of the revocation of the access of the user to the requested application (More specifically, in Clauson, a ticket may be provided to verify that access was revoked, where such ticket would be received by a human operator (Clauson: Figure 7), where Official Notice is taken that it would have been well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to involve a same human operator for verifying the revocation to ensure that the most appropriate approver handles the issues (O’Sullivan: Paragraph [0031]. Lacking a change in the hierarchy, a selected approver should be the same approver.). Further, as with claim 1, above, Official Notice is taken that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide feedback to the user, which would include a notification of any changes in access.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a notification of the revocation to the UE of the user to ensure that the user has knowledge that access was revoked (as opposed to other issues with accessing the resource) so that the user can take appropriate measures to rectify the issue, and to provide a notification to the approver to allow the same human operator that was selected based on the hierarchy to continue to handle issues with the user’s access, thus providing consistency in service to the user (with the measures O’Sullivan for situations for situations the same human operator is not available, where such situations are not relied upon for the instant rejection). With regard to claim 4, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches updating by the application a local user access record of the application to reflect the revocation of the access of the user to the requested application (More specifically, as with claim 2, above, the notification to the application would enable certain functions to be performed, such as logging (local access record), where Official Notice is taken that the recording of such access changes was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to update a local user access record to allow the application to either provide logging functionalities to enable the changes to be reviewed at a later time or to enable the application to approve or deny access, itself, based on the approval, denial, or revocation of the access, thus ensuring that the application would adhere to any access decisions. With regard to claim 5, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson teaches querying by the access records manager of the automated resource access manager a set of resource access records stored in a datastore of the communication system (O’Sullivan: Paragraph [0032] and Clauson: Figure 5, 502 and Paragraph [0066]). With regard to claim 7, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson fails to teach, expressly, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches providing by the requester interface to the UE of the user a notification granting of access or the denial of access to the requested application (More specifically, as with claim 1, when making access decisions, Official Notice is taken that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to notify accessed resources of any changes.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a notification at least a granting of access to the requested application to update the requested application to be current with the access rights, where providing some notification to the application would ensure that the application would is prepared to approve access from the user. Further, providing such notifications provides additional meaning to the notification of revocation of access provided in claim 1, as the application would be able to keep some record of grants and revocations of access. With regard to claim 21, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson teaches querying by an access records manager of the automated resource access manager a set of resource access records stored in a datastore of the communication system; periodically auditing automatically by the access records manager using the set of resource access records one or more users to determine which of the resources of the communication system the one or more users have previously been granted access and identities of approvers responsible for the granting of access to any of the resources of the communication system to which the one or more users have been previously granted access; and periodically updating by the access records manager the set of resource access records based on the auditing to indicate access granted and revoked from the one or more users to one or more of the resources of the communication system based on the periodic auditing by the access records manager (Clauson: Abstract and Paragraphs [0064], [0070], and [0020]). With regard to claim 22, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson teaches determining by the access records manager, based on the auditing of the one or more users by the access records manager, that access of at least one of the one or more users had previously been incorrectly granted to at least one of the resources of the communication system (Clauson: Abstract and Paragraphs [0064], [0070 ], [ 0020], and [0087]. The auditing would catch any issues with users that have been granted access but should not have been.). With regard to claim 23, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson teaches revoking automatically, by the requester interface, access of the at least one of the one or more users to the at least one of the resources of the communication system to which the at least one of the one or more users had previously been incorrectly granted access (Clauson: Abstract and Paragraphs [0064], [0070], and [0020]). With regard to claim 24, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson teaches that the set of resource access records applies one or more constraints to the access granted to the one or more users of one or more requested resources whereby the access granted to the one or more users of the one or more requested resources is subject to revocation in response to a violation by the one or more users of the one or more constraints (Clauson: Abstract and Paragraphs [0064], [0070], and [0020]. Lacking detail of how such constraints are applied, such constraints could be implicitly applied (as in Clauson), with any changes that result in violation of a constraint causing revocation.). With regard to claim 25, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson teaches receiving by the approver interface information pertaining to the user provided to the approver interface from the approver whereby the information is accessible through the approver interface to other approvers associated with the requested resource or other resources of the communication system (O’Sullivan: Paragraph [0051] and Figure 7). With regard to claim 26, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson teaches that the approver is selected by the automated resource access manager based on an identity of the user and an identity of the requested resource (O’Sullivan: Paragraph [0031]. The requirement for approval would be based on the resource requiring such approval, where if the resource did not require approval, no approver would be selected. Then, the approver is selected based on the requestor.). With regard to claim 27, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson teaches that the requested resource comprises a security group of the communication system and the approver is selected by the automated resource access manager based on an identity of the security group (O’Sullivan: Paragraph [0031]. Lacking detail of what constitutes a security group, the organizational hierarchy would identify any security groups that would be associated with the preferred approver.). With regard to claim 28, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches that the security group has a plurality of access tiers and the approver is selected by the automated resource access manager based on an access tier of the plurality of access tiers identified as appropriate for the user by the automated resource access manager (More specifically, when providing access to a resource, it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have different approvers for different tiers of access (e.g. admin access would require a higher ranked approver than lesser access).). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select approvers from O’Sullivan in accordance with the level of access being requested to ensure that such requests would be escalated as appropriate, such that an approver cannot grant more access than they have and that higher levels of access would be given an appropriate review in accordance with an organization’s policies. With regard to claim 29, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches that the requester interface revokes access to the requested resource from the user in response to the user failing to access the requested resource after a predefined time period (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the purging of granted rights that have not been used for a period of time was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to revoke access based on a failure to access the resource after a predefined period of time to ensure that access is only granted to users who actively use the resource, thus reducing the number of accounts that could be compromised to gain access to the resource to only those who actually utilize the resource. With regard to claim 30, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches that the requester interface revokes access to the requested resource from the user in response to expiration of a maximum access time period associated with the requested resource (More specifically, the use of a maximum time period for which credentials or other access authorizations are valid, was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to revoke access in response to expiration of a maximum access time period to ensure that users are refreshing their credentials, thus reducing the likelihood of accounts being compromised. With regard to claim 31, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson teaches that the requester interface revokes access to the requested resource from the user in response to a change in an employment status of the user (Clauson: Paragraph [0020]. An employee may be deemed to no longer need access to the system, which would constitute a change in employment status.). With regard to claim 32, the instant claim seems similar to claim 29, and is rejected for similar reasons. With regard to claim 33 O’Sullivan in view of Clauson fails to teach, but knowledge possessed byone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches providing by the requester interface to the UE of the user a notification of an impending revocation of the granting of access to the requested resource in response to a difference between the predefined access time period and a current duration of access granted to the user of the requested resource equaling a predefined threshold (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a warning to a user that access credentials are close to expiring (e.g. Microsoft Windows, for example, was known to provide a notification that a password would have to be changed as the password is close to expiration (e.g. at 14 days and at 7 days).). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a notification to a user of an impending revocation of access to allow the user to preemptively request access to refresh the credentials, thus ensuring that service is not interrupted. For example, O’Sullivan recognizes the slow nature of request for access, and attempts to solve it by providing alternative approvers (O’Sullivan: Paragraph [0003]), where providing a policy requiring period granting of access, as above, can enhance security by ensuring that any access granted is current, such would possibly subject the user to interruptions in service, where such a notification would ensure that such delays would be able to be navigated prior to any interruption. With regard to claim 34, O’Sullivan in view of Clauson teaches providing information pertaining to at least one of the user or the requested resource from the set of resource access records to the approver via the approver interface, wherein the approver grants the user access or denies the user access to the requested resource based on the information (O’Sullivan: Paragraph [0051] and Figure 7). Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1144 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT John Follansbee can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3964 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN Examiner Art Unit 2444 /SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444