DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is written in response to an amendment filed on 8/12/2026. As directed by amendment: Claims 1, 62, and 99 were amended. Claim 160 was newly added. Claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-26, 35, 38, 42-43, 47, 53-54, 56, 63-98, and 100-159 were cancelled. Thus, Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-10, 27-34, 36-37, 39-41, 44-46, 48-52, 55, 57-62, 99, and 160 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection still stands.
Argument 1: Applicant expresses appreciation to the Examiner for consideration of the subject patent application. This amendment is in response to the Office Action mailed May 12, 2025. Claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, 27-34, 36-37, 39-41, 44-46, 48-52, 55, 57-62 and 99 were rejected. The claims 1, 62, and 99 have been amended to address the concerns raised by the Examiner.
Claims 1-159 were originally presented. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-10, 27-34, 36-37, 39-41, 44- 46, 48-52, 55, 57-62 and 99 remain in the application. Claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-26, 35, 38, 42-43, 47, 53-54, 56, 63-98 and 100-159 have been canceled without prejudice. No claims have been added.
The claim amendments are supported by at least paragraphs [0024] and [0029].
Examiner’s Response: The amended claims now recite “wherein the service is usable upon approval from the service security control and the user input identifies a type of service and includes a natural language justification for requesting access, wherein the natural language justification comprises the type of the service and a description of the functionality of the service from the user”.
However, there is no natural language justification comprising the type of the service found in paragraphs 24 or 29.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 62, and 99 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 5, the first occurrence of “API” should be spelled out.
In Claim 62, line 3, the first occurrence of “API” should be spelled out.
In Claim 99, line 4, the first occurrence of “API” should be spelled out.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-10, 27-34, 36-37, 39-41, 44-46, 48-52, 55, 57-62, 99, and 160 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites “wherein the service is usable upon approval from the security control and the user input identifies a type of the service and includes a natural language justification for requesting access, wherein the natural language justification comprises the type of the service and a description of the functionality of the service from the user.” The specification does not teach “wherein the service is usable upon approval from the security control and the user input identifies a type of the service and includes a natural language justification for requesting access, wherein the natural language justification comprises the type of the service and a description of the functionality of the service from the user.” There is no natural language justification comprising the type of the service found in paragraphs 24 or 29.
Regarding Claims 3, 6, 9-10, 27-34, 36-37, 39-41, 44-46, 48-52, 55, 57-61, and 160 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for their dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 62, Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 99, Claim 99 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-10, 27-34, 36-37, 39-41, 44-46, 48-52, 55, 57-62, 99, and 160 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In interpreting the currently amended claims, in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-10, 27-34, 36-37, 39-41, 44-46, 48-52, 55, 57-62, 99, and 160, the closest prior art of record Doyle et al (“Doyle”, US 20240135009) in view of Yu et al (“Yu”, US 20220353151) in further view of Ozonat et al (“Ozonat”, US 10754896) does not teach a computer-implemented method for service security control, comprising: receiving, by a processor, user input requesting access to a service having an API accessible to a user via a network, accessible from the processor, wherein the service is usable upon approval from the service security control and the user input identifies the a type of service and includes a natural language justification for requesting access, wherein the natural language justification comprises the type of the service and a description of the functionality of the service from the user; and performing, by the processor, a language analysis of the natural language justification and identify a similarity score between the natural language justification and parameters of the service to determine whether to grant access to the service.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Swenson et al (US 20200250328), Abstract - This disclosure relates to systems and methods for managing access to data through enforcement of one or more associated rules. In various embodiments, a directory may be used to manage and/or otherwise record various relationships between objects, that may include governed objects such as data sets, and associated rules and rule sets. Access requests involving governed objects may be compared with relevant rules to determine whether the requested access should be allowed and what, if any, restrictions should be applied in connection with such access. Various embodiments of the disclosed systems and methods may allow for a data governance model that is flexible, allows for use across multiple complex organizations, and is highly extensible.
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 RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 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 at 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights