DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaturvedi et al. (US 2013/0311222 A1) and in view of Sikand et al. (US 2021/0224588 A1).
For claim 21, Chaturvedi et al. teaches a method comprising; fetching an extended escalation matrix that includes an additional access privilege not included in the base escalation matrix [organizational access privilege controllable and extendable from original matrix, 0012-0013: Chaturvedi]; repeating the requested operation based on the additional access privilege [repeating workflow of management after update, 0066: Chaturvedi]; and removing the additional access privilege [add and deny access, 0048: Chaturvedi], but does not teach detecting activation of an exception signaling a failure of a requested operation on a database entity that initially failed because a client does not have required access privileges to the database entry provisioned under a base escalation matrix.
Sikand et al. teaches detecting activation of an exception signaling a failure of a requested operation on a database entity that initially failed because a client does not have required access privileges to the database entry provisioned under a base escalation matrix [upon attempt by a candidate to access certain data, blocking/suspending their access privilege through an escalation matrix setup for the alert, 0073: Sikand].
Chaturvedi et al. (US 2013/0311222 A1) and Sikand et al. (US 2021/0224588 A1) are analogous art because they are from the same field of access privileges.
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the escalation matrix with privileges as described by Chaturvedi et al. with denial of access methodology as taught by Sikand et al.
The motivation for doing would be so that “credentials may be verified” [0002: Sikand].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chaturvedi et al. (US 2013/0311222 A1) with Sikand et al. (US 2021/0224588 A1) for blocking access based on escalation matrix.
For claim 22, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 21, further comprising: creating the extended escalation matrix when a change in business logic requires new access privileges subsequent to creation of the base escalation matrix [organizational access privilege controllable and extendable from original matrix, 0012-0013: Chaturvedi].
For claim 23, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 21, further comprises: performing a union of the base escalation matrix and the extended escalation matrix to provide a final escalation matrix, wherein the final escalation matrix is used to repeat the requested operation [repeating workflow of management after organizational update, 0066; add and deny access, 0048: Chaturvedi].
For claim 24, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 23, further comprising: caching the final escalation matrix to avoid repeatedly performing the union for a subsequent request [caching for group management, 0117: Chaturvedi].
For claim 25, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 21, further comprising: displaying a user interface (UI) that enables an operator to create or modify the extended escalation matrix [GUI with registration of employees for management platform use, 0013: Chaturvedi].
For claim 26, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 21, further comprising: storing the extended escalation matrix as an updateable database table [mapping and organizational platform management as database tables, 0098: Chaturvedi].
For claim 27, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 21, wherein the base escalation matrix includes a series of records each having an API ID, a database entity ID, allowed operations, and a client ID [GUI with registration of employees for management platform use, 0013: Chaturvedi].
For claim 28, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 21, further comprising: creating, controlling, and storing the base escalation matrix and the extended escalation matrix [storing of knowledge base and changes, 0059: Chaturvedi]].
For claim 29, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 21, further comprising: accessing a first record for the requested operation, wherein the first record requires access to a second record in which the client does not have required access privileges under the base escalation matrix [access to only some interfaces, 0047: Chaturvedi]; and detecting the exception when attempting to access the second record using the base escalation matrix [denial of access, 0047: Chaturvedi].
For claim 30, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 29, further comprising: fetching the extended escalation matrix in response to detecting the exception [organizational access privilege controllable and extendable from original matrix based on organizational group access needs, 0012-0013: Chaturvedi]; and accessing the second record in which the client does not have required access privileges under the base escalation matrix using the additional access privilege of the extended escalation matrix [add and deny access, 0048: Chaturvedi].
For claim 31, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 29, wherein the second record is associated with the first record via a foreign key field [records view and manage based on manager type and linked record, 0075: Chaturvedi].
For claim 32, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 21, wherein: access privileges in the base escalation matrix are based on a license provisioned to the client, and the additional access privilege in the extended escalation matrix is based on an internal access in an internal layer of a database [organizational access privilege controllable and extendable from original matrix, 0012-0013: Chaturvedi].
For claim 33, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 32, wherein the additional access privilege in the extended escalation matrix is not based on the license [access is selective, 0041: Chaturvedi].
For claim 34, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 21, further comprising: implementing in a service in an internal layer of a cloud platform the detecting activation of the exception, the fetching of the extended escalation matrix in response to detecting the exception, and applying the additional access privilege from the extended escalation matrix to the requested operation [add to the organizational group when access needed, 0041L Chaturvedi].
For claim 35, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 21, wherein the requested operation is a CRUD (Create, Delete, Update Delete) operation [add, create, update and delete procedures, 0041 Chaturvedi].
For claim 36, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 21, wherein the base escalation matrix includes one or more entries comprising an API identifier (ID) through which an access request is made, a database entity ID for which access is required, and allowed operations [GUI with registration of employees for management platform use, 0013: Chaturvedi].
Claim 37 is a product of the method taught by claim 21. Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches the limitations of claim 21 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 38 is a product of the method taught by claim 22. Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches the limitations of claim 22 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 39 is a product of the method taught by claim 23. Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches the limitations of claim 23 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 40 is a product of the method taught by claim 21. Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches the limitations of claim 21 for the reasons stated above.
For claim 41, Chaturvedi et al. and Sikand et al. teaches:
The method of claim 21, wherein the access privileges in the base escalation matrix are not based on a license [escalation matrix privilege based on candidacy cluster and fraudulence, and not license, 0073: Sikand].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered and some arguments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. A new reference has been brought in to address those arguments and is explained in detail above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
The previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection against claim 41 has been overcome
through amendments to the claim.
Applicant argues that Chaturvedi et al. (US 2013/0311222 A1) does not teach
“fetching an extended escalation matrix that includes an additional access privilege not included in the base escalation matrix”. Chaturvedi et al. teaches having an organizational management platform that has a community of users that have access to tools based on service level agreements [0012: Chaturvedi], but extends the level of access privileges through the creation and facilitation of access to organizational groups [0013: Chaturvedi], which is a secondary extension from the first escalation matrix. Thus, the reference teaches fetching an extended escalation matrix that includes an additional access privilege not included in the base escalation matrix.
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 extension fee 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 AJITH M JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-1763. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: Flexible Hours.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. 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.
3/7/2026
/AJITH JACOB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161