DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks have been given.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claim 3 remove the previous grounds for the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection; however, the amendments also create a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and thus the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 3 is hereby maintained.
The amendment to claim 6 gives cause for the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of said claim to be hereby withdrawn.
The amendments to claim 9 give cause for the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of said claim to be hereby withdrawn.
Claims 4 and 8 are currently presented in their previous form. With no amendments made to said claims, the Examiner upholds the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of said claims.
The Examiner contacted the Attorney of Record on October 15th, 16th, 20th, and 27th to discuss a proposed Examiner’s Amendment. The Examiner left a voicemail each time. However, the Attorney of Record did not reply to any of the voicemail messages left.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the arguments pertaining to the amended claim language having the “bootstrap token” installed “during provisioning”, the claimed “during provisioning” does not render the claim patentably distinct; the order of execution is an obvious and non-patentable feature. Please refer to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C): In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Further, the claimed “temporary identity” is broadly interpreted by the Examiner to pertain to the “temporary credentials” disclosed by Keselman.
In response to the Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “enabling dual-context operation” and “multi-context flexibility”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims do not possess this claim language. The claim limitation “wherein the context indicates whether the virtual machine operates with tenant information or operates without tenant information in the cloud-provider-managed environment” conveys that there is an indication as to what sort of information the claimed “virtual machine” is operating with (e.g., “operates with tenant information or operates without tenant information”). However, there is no “dual-context operation” being performed. There is also no determining as to which “context” is to be enabled nor is there an enabling of one of the contexts over the other; just an indication as to which is being utilized. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the grounds of rejection cited below disclose the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the consumer context associated with the cloud-provider-managed environment” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “consumer context” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term consumer context” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what constitutes a “consumer context”.
When a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the Applicant considers to be the invention. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Presently, some claims require speculation and conjecture by the Examiner and by one of ordinary skill in the art inasmuch as the claims under examination are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In light of the precedence set forth in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970), the Examiner applies cited art in accordance with a position as best understood in the context of the claims and the invention as a whole to expedite compact prosecution. Such interpretations of the claims versus the cited art cannot be used as a basis for overcoming the objections or rejections set forth supra.
A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claim phrase "unobtrusive manner" indefinite because the specification did not "provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language without an objective boundary").
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of its dependency upon claim 4.
Regarding the limitation “receiving the signed certificate associated with the identity provider data” within claim 8, it is unclear which entity is “receiving the signed certificate…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20200145409 A1 to Pochuev et al., hereinafter Pochuev, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20200382323 A1 to Keselman et al., hereinafter Keselman.
Regarding claim 1, Pochuev discloses a computerized system comprising:
one or more computer processors (paragraphs 133, and 135-138);
and computer memory storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors (paragraphs 133, 135, and 137), cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations,
the operations comprising:
communicating a request to an identity provider to create identity provider data for a remote client device of a cloud platform (paragraphs 33 and 101);
based on communicating the request, receiving a bootstrap token containing a remote client device identifier (paragraphs 33, 101, and 103);
and provisioning the remote client device, wherein provisioning the remote client device comprises: creating a set of cloud resources for the remote client device (paragraphs 25, 28 and 29);
wherein the remote client device is configured to employ the bootstrap token to request a signed certificate from the identity provider, the signed certificate support the remote client device’s access to applications and services of the cloud platform (paragraphs 38 and 101).
Pochuev discloses the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Pochuev is not relied upon to disclose the claim limitations pertaining to “installing, during provisioning, the bootstrap token onto a virtual machine associated with the remote client device, wherein the virtual machine is associated with a cloud-provider-managed environment, wherein the bootstrap token is a temporary identity that enables the remote client to operate in a context identified from a plurality of contexts associated with cloud-provider-managed environment, wherein the context indicates whether the virtual machine operates with tenant information or operates without tenant information in the cloud-provider-managed environment”. Keselman discloses said claim limitations, as cited below.
Further regarding claim 1, Keselman discloses installing, during provisioning, the bootstrap token onto a virtual machine associated with the remote client device (paragraphs 57, 58, and 61),
wherein the virtual machine is associated with a cloud-provider-managed environment (paragraphs 36 and 46),
wherein the virtual machine is associated with a cloud-provider-managed environment, wherein the bootstrap token is a temporary identity that enables the remote client to operate in a context identified from a plurality of contexts associated with cloud-provider-managed environment (paragraphs 12 and 13, “temporary credentials”, paragraphs 51 and 52, “temporary credentials” and “The credentials may be generated with an expiration time and/or date”, paragraphs 55 and 61, “Policy configuration may specify what certificates are available to a given virtual machine or other process having a given temporary credential. For example, a policy may specify that a client holding a temporary credential granting access to a particular service may request a certificate for a domain related to that service (e.g., for AWS policy 123, certificate for 123.com is available). In another example, a policy may specify that a client holding a temporary credential granting access to a plurality of services offered by a common provider may request a certificate for a domain related to the common provider (e.g., for authenticated clients of suite XYZ, certificate for XYZ.com is available)”, and paragraph 63),
wherein the context indicates whether the virtual machine operates with tenant information or operates without tenant information in the cloud-provider-managed environment (paragraphs 14 and 57, “a client interested in consuming this service may first attempt to make sure that it is communicating with a legitimate endpoint. The virtual machine then may be required to differentiate itself from any other virtual machine that may be controlled by a rogue entity. For example, the virtual machine may be distinguishable by a differentiating factor. The differentiating factor may be introduced by the distinct attributes that may be expected to be possessed by the given virtual machine during its runtime. An example of one such attribute when running on an AWS EC2 instance is the AWS Role ARN”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Keselman with the teachings of Pochuev so that “By leveraging the authentication and authorization techniques described above, these attributes may be used to create a policy that may be used by the virtual machine to prove its identity to any service, such as a secure sockets layer (SSL) certificate management service” (Keselman – paragraph 58).
In assessing whether a claim to a combination of prior art elements/steps would have been obvious, the question to be asked is whether the improvement of the claim is more than the predictable use of prior art elements or steps according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. It is well established that in evaluating references it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
Pochuev discloses the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Pochuev is not relied upon to disclose the claim limitation pertaining to “wherein the cloud-provider managed environment is associated with a secure channel that supports installing the bootstrap token on the virtual machine”. Keselman discloses said claim limitation, as cited below.
Regarding claim 2, Keselman discloses wherein the cloud-provider-managed environment is associated with a secure channel that supports installing the bootstrap token on the virtual machine (paragraph 15, “may communicate with one another over secure channels (e.g., one or more TLS/SSL channels)”, and paragraphs 58 and 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Keselman with the teachings of Pochuev so that “By leveraging the authentication and authorization techniques described above, these attributes may be used to create a policy that may be used by the virtual machine to prove its identity to any service, such as a secure sockets layer (SSL) certificate management service” (Keselman – paragraph 58).
Pochuev discloses the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Pochuev is not relied upon to disclose the claim limitations pertaining to “wherein the bootstrap token is a temporary identity that is operable with the remote client device in a business context associated with a tenant or the consumer context associated with the cloud-provider-managed environment, wherein the business context indicates that the virtual machine operates with tenant information and the consumer context indicates that the virtual machine operates without tenant information in the cloud-provider-managed environment”. Keselman discloses said claim limitations, as cited below.
Regarding claim 3, Keselman discloses wherein the bootstrap token is a temporary identity that is operable with the remote client device in a business context associated with a tenant or the consumer context associated with the cloud-provider-managed environment (paragraphs 12, 13, 51, 52, 55, 59, 61, and 63),
wherein the business context indicates that the virtual machine operates with tenant information and the consumer context indicates that the virtual machine operates without tenant information in the cloud-provider-managed environment (paragraphs 14 and 57, “a client interested in consuming this service may first attempt to make sure that it is communicating with a legitimate endpoint. The virtual machine then may be required to differentiate itself from any other virtual machine that may be controlled by a rogue entity. For example, the virtual machine may be distinguishable by a differentiating factor. The differentiating factor may be introduced by the distinct attributes that may be expected to be possessed by the given virtual machine during its runtime. An example of one such attribute when running on an AWS EC2 instance is the AWS Role ARN”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Keselman with the teachings of Pochuev so that “policy configuration may be performed by an admin user defining and/or approving policy conditions. Policy configuration may specify what certificates are available to a given virtual machine or other process having a given temporary credential. For example, a policy may specify that a client holding a temporary credential granting access to a particular service may request a certificate for a domain related to that service (e.g., for AWS policy 123, certificate for 123.com is available).” (Keselman – paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 4, Pochuev discloses a tenantless access orchestration engine that provides tenantless access orchestration operations to allow users to use remote client devices in a consumer context, the remote client devices are not associated with tenant information (paragraphs 59 and 100).
Regarding claim 5, Pochuev discloses wherein the tenantless access orchestration engine provides a cloud-based services engine, the remote client device, and the identity provider, the cloud-based services engine is a management service that provides business resources and logic (paragraphs 33 and 134).
Regarding claim 7, Pochuev discloses wherein the cloud platform supports a first set of remote client devices in a consumer context, the first set of remote client devices are associated with a cloud-provider-managed environment of the cloud platform, and a second set of remote client devices in a business context, the second set of remote client devices are associated with a tenant of an organization (paragraphs 33, 59, 100 and 134).
Regarding claim 8, Pochuev discloses the operations further comprising:
communicating, from the remote client device, the request for the signed certificate from the identity provider, wherein the signed certificate is generated based on the identity provider data for the remote client device; receiving the signed certificate associated with the identity provider data; and based on the signed certificate, accessing an application or service of the cloud platform (paragraphs 37, 38, 53, 54, 98, 100, 102, 112, and 113).
Regarding claim 9, Pochuev discloses the operations further comprising:
receiving, at the identity provider, first request, from a cloud-based services engine, to create identity provider data for a first remote client device of a cloud platform; communicating, from the identity provider to the first remote client device, a first bootstrap token containing a first remote client device identifier; receiving, at the identity provider, a second request, from the first remote client, for a signed certificate; and communicating, from the identity provider, the signed certificate to the first remote client device, wherein the signed certificate supports the first remote client device’s access to applications and services of the cloud platform (paragraphs 25, 28, 29, 33, 38, 101, and 103).
Regarding claim 10, Pochuev discloses wherein the identity provider stores identity provider data including a join status and assignment status of remote client devices (paragraphs 27, 28, 30, 31, 42, 43, 47, and 62).
Regarding claim 11, Pochuev discloses One or more computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that (paragraph 144), when executed by a computing system having a processor and memory (paragraphs 133, and 135-138), cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:
communicating, from a remote client device, a request for a signed certificate from an identity provider (paragraphs 33 and 101),
wherein the signed certificate is generated based on identity provider data for the remote client device (paragraphs 33, 101 and 103),
wherein the remote client device is associated with a cloud-provider-managed environment of a cloud platform (paragraphs 25, 28 and 29);
receiving the signed certificate associated with the identity provider data; and based on the signed certificate, accessing an application or service of the cloud platform (paragraphs 38 and 101).
[Paragraph 72 of the Specification states “Computer storage media excludes signals per se”; thus, the claimed “computer storage media” within claim 11 is held to be statutory.]
Pochuev discloses the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Pochuev is not relied upon to disclose the claim limitations pertaining to “wherein the remote client device is provisioned based on installing a bootstrap token onto a virtual machine associated with the remote client device, wherein the bootstrap token is a temporary identity that enables the remote client to operate in a context identified from a plurality of contexts associated with cloud-provider-managed environment, wherein the context indicates whether the virtual machine operates with tenant information or operates without tenant information in the cloud-provider-managed environment”. Keselman discloses said claim limitations, as cited below.
Further regarding claim 11, Keselman discloses wherein the remote client device is provisioned based on installing a bootstrap token onto a virtual machine associated with the remote client device, wherein the bootstrap token is a temporary identity that enables the remote client to operate in a context identified from a plurality of contexts associated with cloud-provider-managed environment (paragraphs 12 and 13, “temporary credentials”, paragraphs 51 and 52, “temporary credentials” and “The credentials may be generated with an expiration time and/or date”, paragraphs 55 and 61, “Policy configuration may specify what certificates are available to a given virtual machine or other process having a given temporary credential. For example, a policy may specify that a client holding a temporary credential granting access to a particular service may request a certificate for a domain related to that service (e.g., for AWS policy 123, certificate for 123.com is available). In another example, a policy may specify that a client holding a temporary credential granting access to a plurality of services offered by a common provider may request a certificate for a domain related to the common provider (e.g., for authenticated clients of suite XYZ, certificate for XYZ.com is available)”, and paragraph 63),
wherein the context indicates whether the virtual machine operates with tenant information or operates without tenant information in the cloud-provider-managed environment (paragraphs 14 and 57, “a client interested in consuming this service may first attempt to make sure that it is communicating with a legitimate endpoint. The virtual machine then may be required to differentiate itself from any other virtual machine that may be controlled by a rogue entity. For example, the virtual machine may be distinguishable by a differentiating factor. The differentiating factor may be introduced by the distinct attributes that may be expected to be possessed by the given virtual machine during its runtime. An example of one such attribute when running on an AWS EC2 instance is the AWS Role ARN”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Keselman with the teachings of Pochuev so that “By leveraging the authentication and authorization techniques described above, these attributes may be used to create a policy that may be used by the virtual machine to prove its identity to any service, such as a secure sockets layer (SSL) certificate management service” (Keselman – paragraph 58).
Pochuev discloses the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Pochuev is not relied upon to disclose the claim limitations pertaining to “wherein the remote client device is provisioned based on: creating a set of cloud resources for the remote client device; and installing the bootstrap token onto the virtual machine associated with the remote client device, wherein the virtual machine is associated with the cloud-provider-managed environment”. Keselman discloses said claim limitations, as cited below.
Regarding claim 12, Keselman discloses wherein the remote client device is provisioned based on:
creating a set of cloud resources for the remote client device (paragraphs 36 and 46);
and installing the bootstrap token onto the virtual machine associated with the remote client device, wherein the virtual machine is associated with the cloud-provider-managed environment (paragraphs 57, 58, and 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Keselman with the teachings of Pochuev so that “By leveraging the authentication and authorization techniques described above, these attributes may be used to create a policy that may be used by the virtual machine to prove its identity to any service, such as a secure sockets layer (SSL) certificate management service” (Keselman – paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 13, Pochuev discloses wherein the remote client device is configured to employ the bootstrap token to request the signed certificate from the identity provider, the signed certificate supports the remote client device’s access to applications and services of the cloud platform (paragraphs 37, 38, 53, 54, 79, 87, 98, 100, 102, and 113).
Pochuev teaches the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Pochuev is not relied upon to teach the claim limitations pertaining to “wherein the remote client device is provisioned based on: creating a set of cloud resources for the remote client device; and installing the bootstrap token onto a virtual machine associated with the remote client device, wherein the virtual machine is associated with a cloud-provider-managed environment”. Keselman teaches said claim limitations, as cited below.
Regarding claim 14, Pochuev discloses wherein the identity provider stores the identity provider data comprising a join status and an assignment status of the remote client device (paragraphs 27, 28, 30, 31, 42, 43, 47, and 62).
Regarding claim 15, Pochuev discloses wherein the cloud platform supports a first set of remote client devices in a consumer context, the first set of remote client devices are associated with a cloud-provider-managed environment of the cloud platform, and a second set of remote client devices in a business context, the second set of remote client devices are associated with a tenant of an organization (paragraphs 33, 59, 100 and 134).
Regarding claim 16, Pochuev teaches a computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
receiving a request, from a cloud-based services engine, to create identity provider data for a remote client device of a cloud platform (paragraphs 33 and 101);
communicating a bootstrap token containing a remote client device identifier;
receiving a second request, from the remote client, for a signed certificate (paragraphs 33, 101 and 103);
and communicating the signed certificate to the remote client device, wherein the signed certificate supports the remote client device’s access to applications and services of the cloud platform (paragraphs 25, 28, 29, 38, and 101).
Regarding claim 17, Keselman teaches wherein the remote client device is provisioned based on:
creating a set of cloud resources for the remote client device (paragraphs 36 and 46);
and installing the bootstrap token onto a virtual machine associated with the remote client device, wherein the virtual machine is associated with a cloud-provider-managed environment (paragraphs 57, 58, and 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Keselman with the teachings of Pochuev so that “By leveraging the authentication and authorization techniques described above, these attributes may be used to create a policy that may be used by the virtual machine to prove its identity to any service, such as a secure sockets layer (SSL) certificate management service” (Keselman – paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 18, Pochuev teaches wherein the remote client device is configured to employ the bootstrap token to request the signed certificate from an identity provider, the signed certificate supports the remote client device’s access to applications and services of the cloud platform (paragraphs 37, 38, 53, 54, 79, 87, 98, 100, 102, and 113).
Regarding claim 19, Pochuev teaches wherein an identity provider stores the identity provider data comprising a join status and an assignment status of the remote client device (paragraphs 27, 28, 30, 31, 42, 43, 47, and 62).
Regarding claim 20, Pochuev teaches wherein the cloud platform supports a first set of remote client devices in a consumer context, the first set of remote client devices are associated with a cloud-provider-managed environment of the cloud platform, and a second set of remote client devices in a business context, the second set of remote client devices are associated with a tenant of an organization (paragraphs 33, 59, 100 and 134).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pochuev and Keselman as applied to independent claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20220398116 A1 to Chen et al., hereinafter Chen.
Pochuev and Keselman disclose the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Pochuev and Keselman are not relied upon to disclose the claim limitations pertaining to “wherein tenantless access orchestration operations support a Desktop as a Service feature (DaaS) of the cloud platform that hosts cloud resources in the cloud-provider-managed environment”. Chen discloses the claim limitations, as cited below.
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses wherein tenantless access orchestration operations support a Desktop as a Service feature (DaaS) of the cloud platform that hosts cloud resources in the cloud-provider-managed environment (paragraph 52, “the application is a desktop”, paragraph 58, “desktop virtualization system”, paragraph 78, “providing virtual applications and/or desktops”, paragraphs 84, 104 and 194).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen with the teachings of Keselman and Pochuev so that “the resource feed(s) 504 may include one or more systems or services for providing virtual applications and/or desktops to the client(s) 501, one or more file repositories and/or file sharing systems, one or more secure browser services, one or more access control services for the SaaS applications 508, one or more management services for local applications on the client(s) 501, one or more internet enabled devices or sensors, etc. The resource management service(s) 502, the resource feed(s) 504, the gateway service(s) 506, the SaaS application(s) 508, and the identity provider 510 may be located within an on-premises data center of an organization for which the multi-resource access system 500 is deployed, within one or more cloud computing environments, or elsewhere” (Chen – paragraph 78).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on form PTO-892 are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to providing user identity information to access desired services and applications.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JEREMIAH L AVERY whose telephone number is (571)272-8627. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/JEREMIAH L AVERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431