DETAILED ACTION
This application has been examined. Claims 1-9,12-19,21-23 are pending. Claims 10-11,20 are cancelled. Claims 22-23 are submitted as new claims.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
Regarding Claim 1
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed disclosed (re. Claim 1) receiving, from the administrator system, a set of access configurations, based on the first grouping parameter set, Huebner-Paragraph 66, content management platform 150 can determine a cost associated with the requested content (e.g., units, credits, monetary funds, etc.), and compare the cost of an amount of available resources associated with the client computer system 104a and/or its user ) after transmitting the first grouping parameter set to the administrator system (Huebner-Paragraph 89, content management platform 150 dynamically modifies the access authorization for the client computer system 104a and/or its user based on the transmitted usage telemetry data ,Paragraph 106, content usage telemetry data can be received periodically by the first computer system from the second computer system)
Regarding Claim 2
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed disclosed (re. Claim 2) transmitting, based on determining the first grouping, the first grouping parameter set to a second entity; Huebner-Paragraph 66, content management platform 150 can determine a cost associated with the requested content (e.g., units, credits, monetary funds, etc.), and compare the cost of an amount of available resources associated with the client computer system 104a and/or its user ) obtaining receiving, from the second entity and after transmitting the first grouping parameter set to the second entity, a set of access configurations based on the first grouping parameter set (Huebner-Paragraph 89, content management platform 150 dynamically modifies the access authorization for the client computer system 104a and/or its user based on the transmitted usage telemetry data, Paragraph 106, content usage telemetry data can be received periodically by the first computer system from the second computer system )
Priority
The effective date of the claims described in this application is September 6, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant is respectfully reminded that each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56.
There were no information disclosure statements filed with this application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18462118 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims are substantially similar and the differences in the scope would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as obvious variations of the same invention.
While copending Application No. 18462118 substantially disclosed the claimed invention copending Application No. 18462118 does not disclose (re. Claim 1) retrieving a plurality of resource groupings, wherein each resource grouping of the plurality of resource groupings includes a corresponding grouping class and a corresponding grouping parameter set; determining a first grouping of the plurality of resource groupings for the first resource based on the first resource parameter set, wherein the first grouping is associated with a first grouping parameter set.
The Examiner notes that before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been well-known to classify various resources into groups according to certain parameter attributes and it would have been well-known to retrieve the plurality of resource groups.
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) 1-3,6-9,12-18,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner (USPGPUB 20200259839) further in view of Dolezal (USPGPUB 20240005318) further in view of Reed (US Patent 11373236)
Regarding Claim 1
Huebner Paragraph 59 disclosed wherein the data processing rules 218 can specify how certain electronic content items 210 can be retrieved and/or modified based on a user's instructions, user access profile 212, and/or usage telemetry data 214.
Huebner Paragraph 67 disclosed wherein content management platform 150 can identify the client computer system 104a and/or its user based on the information included in the request 302.
Huebner Paragraph 92 disclosed wherein content items are organized according to different domains A, B, and C. The domains can correspond, for instance, to different categories, classifications, types, collections, or libraries of the content items.
Huebner disclosed (re. Claim 1) a system for controlling user access to resources, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause operations comprising:
receiving a resource access request from a user, (Huebner-Paragraph 65, request 302 can include information identifying the specific content being requested (e.g., the identity of one or more particular data files, images, audio files, video files, computerized models, text files, and/or other electronic content). In some cases, multiple pieces of content can be requested at once (e.g., a package of several pieces of content, library of several pieces of content, a compressed file containing several pieces of content).) the resource access request associated with a first resource parameter set corresponding to a first resource requested by the user; (Huebner- Paragraph 67,content management platform 150 can identify the client computer system 104a and/or its user based on the information included in the request 302,Paragraph 91, each electronic content item can be associated with an amount of resources corresponding to the retrieval and/or use of the electronic content item (e.g., a resource cost),Paragraph 109, access profile includes an indication of a number of licensing units available for use by the second computer system,Paragraph 110, determining an amount of funds associated with usage of the first electronic content by the second computer system based on the content usage telemetry data)
retrieving a plurality of resource groupings, wherein each resource grouping of the plurality of resource groupings includes a corresponding grouping class and a corresponding grouping parameter set; (Huebner-Paragraph 65, multiple pieces of content can be requested at once (e.g., a package of several pieces of content, library of several pieces of content, a compressed file containing several pieces of content).)
determining a first grouping of the plurality of resource groupings for the first resource based on the first resource parameter set, wherein the first grouping is associated with a first grouping parameter set; (Huebner-Paragraph 66, content management platform 150 can determine a cost associated with the requested content (e.g., units, credits, monetary funds, etc.), and compare the cost of an amount of available resources associated with the client computer system 104a and/or its user )
transmitting, to an administrator system, a first request for a set of allowed access configurations, wherein the first request comprises the first grouping parameter set; (Huebner-Paragraph 60, information inputted by users on the client computer systems 104a-c can be transmitted to the content management platform 150 through the transmission module 204, Paragraph 78,database module 202 can store information describing access permissions granted to the users by the content management platform 150. For instance, the database module 202 can store information indicating whether each user has permission to retrieve electronic content items from the content management platform 150, and if so, the specific electronic content items to which the user has access , Paragraph 59, the data processing rules 218 can specify how certain electronic content items 210 can be retrieved and/or modified based on a user's instructions, user access profile 212, and/or usage telemetry data 214. ) in response to the first request,
receiving, from the administrator system, a set of access configurations, based on the first grouping parameter set, (Huebner-Paragraph 66, content management platform 150 can determine a cost associated with the requested content (e.g., units, credits, monetary funds, etc.), and compare the cost of an amount of available resources associated with the client computer system 104a and/or its user ) wherein each access configuration of the set of access configurations is associated with an associated configuration parameter set, wherein each configuration parameter set indicates a protocol for accessing resources based on an associated access configuration, (Huebner-Paragraph 78, content management platform 150 can determine the amount of resources associated with the requested content 306 based on the usage of the requested content 306, and dynamically adjust the resources available to the client computer system 104a and/or its user in response. )
While Huebner substantially disclosed the claimed invention Huebner does not disclose (re. Claim 1) receiving a resource access request from a user, the resource access request comprising a first resource parameter set corresponding to a first resource requested by the user.
While Huebner substantially disclosed the claimed invention Huebner does not disclose (re. Claim 1) wherein a corresponding configuration parameter of the associated configuration parameter set matches a corresponding resource parameter of the first grouping parameter set;
transmitting a second request to the user for an access protocol for providing the first resource, wherein the second request to the user comprises an indication of the set of access configurations;
receiving, from the user, a requested access configuration of the set of access configurations for accessing the first resource; and
providing access to the first resource for the user according to the requested access configuration.
Dolezal Figure 2A-2C, Paragraph 27 disclosed wherein Resource access interface 123 presents options to the owner to define aliases for the owner's financial account 114. Each alias defines specific portal-based accesses to the financial account. Each alias is managed by resource manager 115 from the corresponding portal-based attributes in the data model as an independent account (resource 114) defined and controlled by rules driven by the values set on the portal-based attributes.
Dolezal disclosed (re. Claim 1)
wherein a corresponding configuration parameter (Dolezal-Paragraph 27, Resource access interface 123 presents options to the owner to define aliases for the owner's financial account 114. In an alternative embodiment, an owner may be required to obtain assistance for alias creation and other operations. Each alias defines specific portal-based accesses to the financial account. Each alias is managed by resource manager 115 from the corresponding portal-based attributes in the data model as an independent account (resource 114) defined and controlled by rules driven by the values set on the portal-based attributes ) of the associated configuration parameter set matches a corresponding resource parameter of the first grouping parameter set; (Dolezal-Paragraph 87, resource manager determines sets of the access rules to assign based on the stated access purpose, the stated access capability, or the stated access function. For example, an access rule will be assigned to an alias account that prohibits withdrawals when the stated capability or purpose of the corresponding alias is a receipts-only type of alias account, Paragraph 96, the resource portal manager associates a particular set of access rules to each portal. An attribute associated with an alias having a defined purpose, capability, or function will be assigned a set of specific access rules for its corresponding portal.)
transmitting a second request to the user for an access protocol for providing the first resource, (Dolezal-Paragraph 95, resource portal manager provides an interface 123 to an owner of a resource for defining multiple portal access to the resource. Interface 123 is interactive, and each selection of attributes determine what options are next available for the owner to select ) wherein the second request to the user comprises an indication of the set of access configurations; (Dolezal-Paragraph 30, Portal manager 116 identifies the portal identifier (alias identifier) made in an access request by service 133 and obtains the corresponding access rules for the corresponding resource 114 through resource manager 115 using the portal identifier.)
receiving, from the user, a requested access configuration of the set of access configurations for accessing the first resource; (Dolezal-Paragraph 33, unique access rules are assigned by resource manager 115 based on the corresponding portal-based attribute values set by the owner via interface 124.) and
providing access to the first resource for the user according to the requested access configuration.(Dolezal-Paragraph 5, resource may be accessed using one or more aliases defined by the owner; each alias includes its own set of attributes. Access to any given alias is provided through a specific portal.)
Huebner and Dolezal are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding resource access rules. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Dolezal into Huebner. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable owners to use attributes and attribute values to be assigned by the owner to automate these operations for typical, frequent, and recurring activities.(Dolezal-Paragraph 37)
While Huebner-Dolezal substantially disclosed the claimed invention Huebner-Dolezal does not disclose (re. Claim 1) receiving a resource access request from a user, the resource access request comprising a first resource parameter set corresponding to a first resource requested by the user.
Reed Column 7 Lines 20-30 disclosed wherein customer selections processing module 204 processes selections of student loans to be consolidated. The selections can identify two or more loans that the customer proposes to consolidate, and selected characteristics of the consolidated loan, including a type of the consolidated loan and a term of the consolidated loan. The selections can made by the customer via a user interface of customer electronic computing device 102. The selections can identify the loans proposed to be consolidated and can also indicate proposed characteristics of the proposed consolidated loan, including a proposed type of the consolidated loan and a term of the proposed consolidated loan.
Reed disclosed (re. Claim 1) receiving a resource access request from a user, the resource access request comprising a first resource parameter set corresponding to a first resource requested by the user.( Reed-Column 7 Lines 20-30,customer selections processing module 204 processes selections of student loans to be consolidated. The selections can identify two or more loans that the customer proposes to consolidate, and selected characteristics of the consolidated loan, including a type of the consolidated loan and a term of the consolidated loan. The selections can made by the customer via a user interface of customer electronic computing device 102. The selections can identify the loans proposed to be consolidated and can also indicate proposed characteristics of the proposed consolidated loan, including a proposed type of the consolidated loan and a term of the proposed consolidated loan)
Huebner and Reed are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding resource access rules. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Reed into Huebner. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable sending information to the user device regarding any benefits that would be lost as a result of consolidation.(Reed-Column 2 Lines 35)
Regarding Claim 2
Claim 2 (re. method) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17
Claim 17 (re. non-transitory computer readable medium) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3,18
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed disclosed (re. Claim 3,18) wherein determining the first grouping based on the first resource parameter set comprises: determining a first resource type for the first resource from a first parameter of the first resource parameter set; (Huebner-Paragraph 78, requested content can be associated with a first cost for a first type of usage)
obtaining a first plurality of resources associated with the first grouping and a corresponding plurality of resource parameter sets, wherein each resource parameter set is associated with an associated resource of the first plurality of resources; determining that each resource parameter set of the corresponding plurality of resource parameter sets includes an associated resource parameter, wherein the associated resource parameter corresponds to the first resource type for the first resource; and based on determining that each resource parameter set includes the associated resource parameter, generating the first grouping to include the first plurality of resources. (Huebner-Paragraph 78, requested content can be associated with a first cost for a first type of usage)
Regarding Claim 6
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed disclosed (re. Claim 6) determining a first entity evaluation metric for the first entity, the first entity evaluation metric indicating a degree of trustworthiness for the first entity; (Dolezal-Paragraph 36, custom-assigned and definable levels of access tailored to the owners' maturity, trustworthiness, and need for access)
Regarding Claim 7
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed disclosed (re. Claim 7) wherein determining the first entity evaluation metric comprises: determining an entity identifier corresponding to the first entity based on the resource access request; transmitting an entity evaluation request to a server system, wherein the entity evaluation request comprises the entity identifier and a request for an evaluation of the first entity; (Huebner-Paragraph 85, request can include information identifying the client computer system 104a and/or a user of the client computer system 104a (e.g., an account associated with the user, access credentials, etc.). ) and in response to transmitting the entity evaluation request, receiving the first entity evaluation metric from the server system.
Regarding Claim 8
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed disclosed (re. Claim 8) generating an updated set of access configurations based on the first entity evaluation metric, (Huebner-Paragraph 89, content management platform 150 dynamically modifies the access authorization for the client computer system 104a and/or its user based on the transmitted usage telemetry data ) wherein each access configuration of the updated set of access configurations is associated with a corresponding updated configuration parameter set; transmitting a second request to the first entity for an access protocol for providing the first resource, wherein the second request comprises an indication of the set of access configurations, wherein the second request includes an indication of the updated set of access configurations; (Huebner-Paragraph 89, content management platform 150 dynamically modifies the access authorization for the client computer system 104a and/or its user based on the transmitted usage telemetry data ) and receiving the requested access configuration in response to the second request.
Regarding Claim 9
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed disclosed (re. Claim 9) retrieving a first plurality of resources associated with the first grouping; based on the first plurality of resources, determining a sum value for the first grouping, wherein the sum value indicates a sum of a plurality of resource values associated with the first plurality of resources; (Huebner-Paragraph 91, the total cost that is assessed to a user's account can be determined based on “stacking” and/or “leveling” techniques.)
based on retrieving a plurality of timestamps corresponding to the first plurality of resources, determining an indication of a period of time associated with the first plurality of resources; (Dolezal-Paragraph 34, enabled duration of service 133 access to the aliases (defined by the owner) can be temporary, single use, limited in frequency during an owner-defined time period ) and generating the first grouping parameter set, the first grouping parameter set comprising the sum value and the indication of the period of time as corresponding grouping parameters.
Regarding Claim 12
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed disclosed (re. Claim 12) wherein providing access to the first resource for the first entity according to the requested access configuration comprises: determining, based on the first resource parameter set, a plurality of resource access instructions for accessing the first resource; (Dolezal-Paragraph 95, resource portal manager provides an interface 123 to an owner of a resource for defining multiple portal access to the resource. Interface 123 is interactive, and each selection of attributes determine what options are next available for the owner to select ) and transmitting, to the first entity, the plurality of resource access instructions.
Regarding Claim 13
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed disclosed (re. Claim 13) determining a first time, wherein the first time indicates a time at which the first entity accesses the first resource; (Dolezal-Paragraph 34, enabled duration of service 133 access to the aliases (defined by the owner) can be temporary, single use, limited in frequency during an owner-defined time period ) generating, at a second time, an indication of whether the first entity has executed each instruction of the plurality of resource access instructions, wherein the second time is greater than a threshold elapsed time from the first time; and based on the indication of whether the first entity has executed each instruction of the plurality of resource access instructions, transmitting a warning message to the first entity, wherein the warning message indicates a subset of instructions of the plurality of resource access instructions for the first entity to execute.(Huebner-Paragraph 90, if the client computer system 104a and/or its user are no longer authorized to access a particular electronic content item (e.g., due to changes in usage patterns, available resources, etc.), the content management platform 150 can transmit an access authorization message to the client computer system 104a and/or the content computer system 110a indicating this change in access. Based on the message, the content computer system 110a can discontinue access to the content by the client computer system 104a.)
Regarding Claim 14
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed disclosed (re. Claim 14) retrieving, from a resource access database, an entity access history for the first entity, wherein the entity access history includes information relating to previously accessed resources associated with the first entity; and updating the entity access history to include the indication of whether the first entity has executed each instruction of the plurality of resource access instructions. (Huebner-Paragraph 89, content management platform 150 dynamically modifies the access authorization for the client computer system 104a and/or its user based on the transmitted usage telemetry data )
Regarding Claim 15
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed disclosed (re. Claim 15) receiving, from a third entity, an updated configuration parameter set corresponding to the requested access configuration of the set of access configurations; (Huebner-Paragraph 89, content management platform 150 dynamically modifies the access authorization for the client computer system 104a and/or its user based on the transmitted usage telemetry data ) and providing access to the first resource for the first entity according to the updated configuration parameter set.
Regarding Claim 16
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed disclosed (re. Claim 16) receiving, from the first entity, a requested configuration parameter set corresponding to the requested access configuration; transmitting an authorization request to the second entity, the authorization request comprising the requested configuration parameter set; (Huebner-Paragraph 85, request can include information identifying the client computer system 104a and/or a user of the client computer system 104a (e.g., an account associated with the user, access credentials, etc.). ) receiving an authorization indication from the second entity; and based on receiving the authorization indication from the second entity, modifying the requested access configuration and the associated configuration parameter set to include the requested configuration parameter set.
Regarding Claim 21
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed disclosed (re. Claim 21) wherein the first grouping class indicates a class or type of resource associated with the first grouping (Huebner-Paragraph 92,content items are organized according to different domains A, B, and C. The domains can correspond to different categories, classifications, types, collections, or libraries of the content items wherein each domain is associated with a particular cost) and
wherein the first grouping parameter set includes an indication of a time period associated with the first grouping. (Dolezal-Paragraph 34, enabled duration of service 133 access to the aliases (defined by the owner) can be temporary, single use, limited in frequency during an owner-defined time period )
Claim(s) 4,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner (USPGPUB 20200259839) further in view of Dolezal (USPGPUB 20240005318) further in view of Reed (US Patent 11373236)
Regarding Claim 4,19
Huebner-Dolezal disclosed (re. Claim 4,19) wherein determining the first grouping based on the first resource parameter set comprises: determining a first resource value based on the first resource parameter set, wherein the first resource value indicates a first quantitative measure of the first resource; (Huebner-Paragraph 91, each electronic content item can be associated with an amount of resources corresponding to the retrieval and/or use of the electronic content item (e.g., a resource cost))
determining an entity identifier corresponding to the first entity based on the resource access request; retrieving, from a resource access database, a plurality of requested resources associated with the first entity, wherein the plurality of requested resources includes previously requested resources requested by the first entity; (Huebner-Paragraph 75, generates usage telemetry data describing the retrieval and/or use of the requested content 306 by the client computer system 104a and/or its user.)
determining a plurality of resource values, wherein each resource value of the plurality of resource values indicates a corresponding quantitative measure of a corresponding previously requested resource; (Huebner-Paragraph 91, each electronic content item can be associated with an amount of resources corresponding to the retrieval and/or use of the electronic content item (e.g., a resource cost))
generating a sum value of the first resource value and each resource value in the plurality of resource values and the first resource; (Huebner-Paragraph 91, the total cost that is assessed to a user's account can be determined based on “stacking” and/or “leveling” techniques.)
While Huebner-Dolezal substantially disclosed the claimed invention Huebner-Dolezal does not disclose (re. Claim 4,19)
comparing the sum value with a threshold value associated with the first grouping; and based on comparing the sum value with the threshold value associated with the first grouping, determining the first grouping to include the plurality of requested resources and the first resource.
Reed Column 7 Lines 40-55 disclosed wherein loan consolidation module 206 can also determine whether any of the proposed loans for consolidation should be excluded from consolidation. Loans can be excluded for consolidation when a cost for the consolidated loan is more than a sum of costs for individual loans to be consolidated. Loans that are excluded from consolidation can be included in an exclusion group of loans.
Reed disclosed (re. Claim 4,19) comparing the sum value with a threshold value associated with the first grouping; and based on comparing the sum value with the threshold value associated with the first grouping, determining the first grouping to include the plurality of requested resources and the first resource.( Reed-Column 7 Lines 40-55,loan consolidation module 206 can also determine whether any of the proposed loans for consolidation should be excluded from consolidation. Loans can be excluded for consolidation when a cost for the consolidated loan is more than a sum of costs for individual loans to be consolidated. Loans that are excluded from consolidation can be included in an exclusion group of loans.)
Huebner and Reed are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding resource access rules. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Reed into Huebner. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable sending information to the user device regarding any benefits that would be lost as a result of consolidation.(Reed-Column 2 Lines 35)
Claim(s) 5,22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner (USPGPUB 20200259839) further in view of Dolezal (USPGPUB 20240005318) further in view of Reed (US Patent 11373236) further in view of Saxena (USPGPUB 20190327271)
Regarding Claim 22
While Huebner-Dolezal substantially disclosed the claimed invention Huebner-Dolezal does not disclose (re. Claim 22) wherein the first grouping parameter set includes a time period of timestamps associated with resources within the first grouping.
Saxena Paragraph 241 disclosed wherein activity volume anomalies may be determined by learning activity volumes for each entity (e.g. the number of times a specific API or action is invoked by the entity over a time period). Ongoing or current activity volume for an entity may be analyzed to identify anomalous behavior such as spikes in actions or an abnormal volume of actions over some time period.
Saxena disclosed (re. Claim 22) wherein the first grouping parameter set includes a time period of timestamps (Saxena-Paragraph 283, access related event information may comprise timestamps associated with access related event occurrence.) associated with resources within the first grouping. (Saxena-Paragraph 158, determine, for a plurality of entities, the types of access used over some time period (e.g. specified by an administrator). Access types for the entities over the time period may provide an access usage profile for the entities.)
Huebner and Saxena are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding resource access rules. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Saxena into Huebner. The motivation for the said combination would have been to determine and flag violations of any adopted separation of duties policy and/or any other adopted best practices policy.(Saxena-Paragraph 137)
Regarding Claim 23
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed-Saxena disclosed (re. Claim 23) transmitting, to the first entity, a plurality of resource access instructions for accessing the first resource; and transmitting, to the first entity, a warning message indicating a subset of instructions, of the plurality of resource access instructions for accessing the first resource, that have not been executed within a particular timeframe.(Saxena-Paragraph 160, a higher risk score may be assigned to an entity with a larger number of unused sensitive privileges. Access paths or privileges not used by an entity may be quarantined (e.g. restricted from use), automatically or manually deprovisioned (removed), or monitored so that usage attempts trigger an alert, Paragraph 248, FIG. 5D,access permissions for one or more second entities that were not accessed by the first entity during the time period may be restricted. The access permissions may be quarantined or deleted.)
Regarding Claim 5
Huebner-Dolezal-Reed-Saxena disclosed (re. Claim 5) wherein determining the first grouping based on the first resource parameter set comprises: determining a first timestamp (Saxena-Paragraph 283, access related event information may comprise timestamps associated with access related event occurrence.) based on the first resource parameter set, (Dolezal-Paragraph 34, enabled duration of service 133 access to the aliases (defined by the owner) can be temporary, single use, limited in frequency during an owner-defined time period ) wherein the first timestamp indicates a time associated with requesting the first resource; determining one or more timestamps (Saxena-Paragraph 283, access related event information may comprise timestamps associated with access related event occurrence.) associated with the first grouping based on the first grouping parameter set, (Saxena-Paragraph 158, determine, for a plurality of entities, the types of access used over some time period (e.g. specified by an administrator). Access types for the entities over the time period may provide an access usage profile for the entities.)wherein the one or more timestamps indicate a time period associated with resources within the first grouping; and based on comparing the first timestamp with the one or more timestamps, determining the first grouping to include the first resource. (Dolezal-Paragraph 34, enabled duration of service 133 access to the aliases (defined by the owner) can be temporary, single use, limited in frequency during an owner-defined time period )
Conclusion
Examiner’s Note: In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREG C BENGZON whose telephone number is (571)272-3944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREG C BENGZON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights