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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is written in response to an amendment filed on 3/9/2026. As directed by amendment: Claims 1, 62, and 99 were amended. No new claims were added. Claims 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, and 99 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 62, and 99 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 1 and 99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
Regarding Claim 1, Doyle teaches a computer system for a security control, comprising:
one or more computer readable storage media storing program instructions and one or more processors which, in response to executing the program instructions, are configured to:
receive user input requesting access to a service provided by the computing system (par 48),
wherein the user input identifies the service and includes a natural language justification for requesting access (par 48);
perform a language analysis of the natural language justification and identify a similarity score between the natural language justification and parameters of the service (par 48; The similarity score is the relevance score which is a comparison between the semantic information for the content item (parameters for the service) with the semantic information for justification information (natural language justification).);
determine whether access should be granted to the service based at least in part on the similarity score (par 48-49);
Doyle does not explicitly teach configure permissions for the service to enable access by a user when a determination is made to grant access.
Yu teaches configure permissions for the service to enable access by a user when a determination is made to grant access (par 382).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle with the permission access policy of Yu because it limits how much access a user has, thereby improving security.
Doyle and Yu do not explicitly teach wherein the natural language justification comprises a description of the functionality of the service from the user.
Ozonat teaches wherein the natural language justification comprises a description of the functionality of the service from the user (Fig. 2, elements {210, 215}, Fig. 3, elements {300-380}, Col. 3 lines 7-67, Col. 4 lines 1-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle and Yu with the service description analysis of Ozonat because it allows for a user to further refine service requirements in order to obtain a service that is tailored to the needs of the user (Col. 2 lines 33-52).
Regarding Claim 99, Doyle teaches a computer-implemented method for service security control, comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a request comprising the identity of a user requesting access to a service, an identity of the service, and a natural language justification for requesting access (par 48);
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 (par 48; The similarity score is the relevance score which is a comparison between the semantic information for the content item (parameters for the service) with the semantic information for justification information (natural language justification).);
determining, by the processor, whether access should be granted to the service based at least in part on the similarity score (par 48; The similarity score is the relevance score which is a comparison between the semantic information for the content item (parameters for the service) with the semantic information for justification information (natural language justification).);
Doyle does not explicitly teach configuring, by the processor, permissions for the service to enable access by the user when a determination is made to grant access.
Yu teaches configuring, by the processor, permissions for the service to enable access by the user when a determination is made to grant access (par 382).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle with the permission access policy of Yu because it limits how much access a user has, thereby improving security.
Doyle and Yu do not explicitly teach wherein the natural language justification comprises a description of the functionality of the service from the user.
Ozonat teaches wherein the natural language justification comprises a description of the functionality of the service from the user (Fig. 2, elements {210, 215}, Fig. 3, elements {300-380}, Col. 3 lines 7-67, Col. 4 lines 1-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle and Yu with the service description analysis of Ozonat because it allows for a user to further refine service requirements in order to obtain a service that is tailored to the needs of the user (Col. 2 lines 33-52).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat in view of Koren et al (“Koren”, US 20190122272).
Regarding Claim 2, Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat teach a computer system according to claim 1.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the natural language justification comprises a description of what the user believes to be the functionality of the service.
Koren teaches wherein the natural language justification comprises a description of what the user believes to be the functionality of the service (par 27-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the service matching of Koren because it ensures that the user is provided with the correct service by taking the description of the service into account when fulfilling the request (Koren; par 27-32; par 67).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat in view of Black et al (“Black”, US 8205010).
Regarding Claim 3, Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat teach a computer system according to claim 1.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the determination whether access should be granted is based at least in part on whether users related to the user have access to the service.
Black teaches wherein the determination whether access should be granted is based at least in part on whether users related to the user have access to the service (Col. 7 lines 36-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the access permissions of Black because it allows appropriate users to access certain information (Black; Col. 7 lines 36-60). This further allows trusted users who belong to an organization to easily gain access.
Regarding Claim 6, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Black teach a computer system according to claim 3.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the relations between the users are determined based at least in part on organization data of an organization to which the users belong.
Black teaches wherein the relations between the users are determined based at least in part on organization data of an organization to which the users belong (Col. 7 lines 36-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the access permissions of Black because it allows appropriate users to access certain information (Black; Col. 7 lines 36-60). This further allows trusted users who belong to an organization to easily gain access.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat in view of Yeates et al (“Yeates”, US 20050198348).
Regarding Claim 9, Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat teach a computer system according to claim 1.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the determination whether access should be granted is based at least in part on the user’s access rights in relation to related Services.
Yeates teaches wherein the determination whether access should be granted is based at least in part on the user’s access rights in relation to related Services (par 48; par 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the application cookies of Yeates because it allows for the remembrance of user preferences based on previous online activity.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat in view of Govardhan et al (“Govardhan”, US 20190334947).
Regarding Claim 10, Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat teach a computer system according to claim 1.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the determination whether access should be granted is based at least in part on the user’s role in the organization which provides the service or the organisation to which the user belongs.
Govardhan teaches wherein the determination whether access should be granted is based at least in part on the user’s role in the organization which provides the service or the organisation to which the user belongs (par 32; par 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the user roles of Govardhan because it prevents access from users who should not have access to certain content.
Claims 27-29, 31-32, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat in view of Naick et al (“Naick”, US 20050108351).
Regarding Claim 27, Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat teach a computer system according to claim 1.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the service relates to an email system.
Naick teaches wherein the service relates to an email system (par 8; par 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the email system of Naick because it allows for a quick and cost-effective way to send information.
Regarding Claim 28, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick teach a computer system according to claim 27.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the service is transmission of an email to specified set of addresses.
Naick teaches wherein the service is transmission of an email to specified set of addresses (par 8; par 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the email system of Naick because it allows for a quick and cost-effective way to send information.
Regarding Claim 29, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick teach a computer system according to claim 27.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include the addresses to which the user wishes to send an email.
Naick teaches wherein the parameters include the addresses to which the user wishes to send an email (par 8; par 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the email system of Naick because it allows for a quick and cost-effective way to send information.
Regarding Claim 31, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick teach a computer system according to claim 27.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include the user’s role or department in the organisation, and/or their length of service.
Naick teaches wherein the parameters include the user’s role or department in the organisation, and/or their length of service (par 8; par 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the email system of Naick because it allows for a quick and cost-effective way to send information.
Regarding Claim 32, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick teach a computer system according to claim 27.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include the content of an email the user wishes to send.
Naick teaches wherein the parameters include the content of an email the user wishes to send (par 8; par 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the email system of Naick because it allows for a quick and cost-effective way to send information.
Regarding Claim 40, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick teach a computer system according to claim 28.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include information regarding attachments to the email.
Naick teaches wherein the parameters include information regarding attachments to the email (par 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the email system of Naick because it allows for a quick and cost-effective way to send information.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick in view of Famous et al (“Famous”, US 20150256676).
Regarding Claim 30, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick teach a computer system according to claim 27.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include the time of day of the request.
Famous teaches wherein the parameters include the time of day of the request (par 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick with the timestamp of Famous because it allows for users to know when an email was sent.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick in view of Chugh et al (“Chugh”, US 20240378369).
Regarding Claim 33, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick teach a computer system according to claim 31.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick do not explicitly teach wherein the content of the email is analysed to determine if it is appropriate for the requested recipients.
Chugh teaches wherein the content of the email is analysed to determine if it is appropriate for the requested recipients (par 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick with the filters of Chugh because It helps users to more effectively communicate in writing (Chugh; par 1).
Regarding Claim 34, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, Naick, and Chugh teach a computer system according to claim 33.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick do not explicitly teach wherein the content is analysed using a large language model.
Chugh teaches wherein the content is analysed using a large language model (par 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick with the filters of Chugh because It helps users to more effectively communicate in writing (Chugh; par 1).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick in view of Guo et al (“Guo”, US 20090300720).
Regarding Claim 36, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick teach a computer system according to claim 27.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include the size of a distribution list to which it is requested to send an email.
Guo teaches wherein the parameters include the size of a distribution list to which it is requested to send an email (par 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick with the distribution list of Guo because it limits the number of emails sent during a specific period (Guo; par 39), thereby improving system performance during times of high email volume.
Claims 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick in view of Gopathy et al (“Gopathy”, US 20250173656).
Regarding Claim 37, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick teach a computer system according to claim 27.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick do not explicitly teach wherein the purpose of the email is determined by a language analysis of the content of the email.
Gopathy teaches wherein the purpose of the email is determined by a language analysis of the content of the email (par 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick with the email analysis of Gopathy because it can be used to prevent malicious attacks such as BEC attacks (Gopathy; par 6).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick in view of Etgar et al (“Etgar”, US 20150113079).
Regarding Claim 39, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick teach a computer system according to claim 28.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include the urgency of the email, which may be determined by a language analysis of the content of the email.
Etgar teaches wherein the parameters include the urgency of the email, which may be determined by a language analysis of the content of the email (par 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick with the email importance of Etgar because it allows for users to read more important emails first, so they do not waste time with less important emails (Etgar; par 3-5).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick in view of Wang et al (“Wang”, US 20090307313).
Regarding Claim 41, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick teach a computer system according to claim 27.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include an indication of previous emails marked as inappropriate.
Wang teaches wherein the parameters include an indication of previous emails marked as inappropriate (par 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Naick with the spam filtering of Wang because it helps prevent users from receiving unwanted or malicious emails.
Claims 44-45 and 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat in view of Pinner et al (“Pinner”, US 20200021574).
Regarding Claim 44, Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat teach a computer system according to claim 1.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the service relates to a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) system.
Pinner teaches wherein the service relates to a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) system (par 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the CRM of Pinner because it allows users to access their own contacts without accessing the contacts of others (Pinner; par 24), thereby improving privacy and security.
Regarding Claim 45, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Pinner teach a computer system according to claim 44.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the service is access to the CRM system.
Pinner teaches wherein the service is access to the CRM system (par 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the CRM of Pinner because it allows users to access their own contacts without accessing the contacts of others (Pinner; par 24), thereby improving privacy and security.
Regarding Claim 48, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Pinner teach a computer system according to claim 44.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include an indication whether the user is collaborating with other users who have access to the requested service.
Pinner teaches wherein the parameters include an indication whether the user is collaborating with other users who have access to the requested service (par 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the CRM of Pinner because it allows users to access their own contacts without accessing the contacts of others (Pinner; par 24), thereby improving privacy and security.
Regarding Claim 49, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Pinner teach a computer system according to claim 44.
Doyle further teaches wherein the parameters include the sensitivity of data accessible using the requested service (par 48).
Regarding Claim 50, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Pinner teach a computer system according to claim 44.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include the status of customers whose data is accessible using the requested service.
Pinner teaches wherein the parameters include the status of customers whose data is accessible using the requested service (par 24; The status of customers is the access permissions 139.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the CRM of Pinner because it allows users to access their own contacts without accessing the contacts of others (Pinner; par 24), thereby improving privacy and security.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Pinner in view of Naick.
Regarding Claim 46, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Pinner teach a computer system according to claim 44.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Pinner do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include the user’s role or department in the organisation, and/or their length of service.
Naick teaches wherein the parameters include the user’s role or department in the organisation, and/or their length of service (par 8; par 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Pinner with the user’s role information of Naick because it allows for other users to know more information about other users such as what they do, thereby improving collaboration and communication.
Claims 51 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat in view of Piernot et al (“Piernot”, US 20110202589).
Regarding Claim 51, Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat teach a computer system according to claim 1.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the service relates to a proxy service.
Piernot teaches wherein the service relates to a proxy service (par 97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the proxy service of Piernot because proxy services improve privacy and security.
Regarding Claim 55, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot teach a computer system according to claim 51.
Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat do not explicitly teach wherein the service relates to access to a specific site via the proxy service.
Piernot teaches wherein the service relates to access to a specific site via the proxy service (par 97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, and Ozonat with the proxy service of Piernot because proxy services improve privacy and security.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot in view of Naick.
Regarding Claim 52, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot teach a computer system according to claim 51.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include the user’s role or department in the organisation, and/or their length of service.
Naick teaches wherein the parameters include the user’s role or department in the organisation, and/or their length of service (par 8; par 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Pinner with the user’s role information of Naick because it allows for other users to know more information about other users such as what they do, thereby improving collaboration and communication.
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot in view of Kravitz et al (“Kravitz”, US 20220327167).
Regarding Claim 57, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot teach a computer system according to claim 55.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include an indication of the site’s reputation, category, and/or relevance to the user’s role.
Kravitz teaches wherein the parameters include an indication of the site’s reputation, category, and/or relevance to the user’s role (par 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot with the website reputation of Kravitz because it allows for a user to know whether the website is safe or legitimate, thereby improving security.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot in view of Chugh.
Regarding Claim 58, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot teach a computer system according to claim 55.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include the content and/or terms & conditions of the site, which are analysed using a language analysis system and which may be a large language model.
Chugh teaches wherein the parameters include the content and/or terms & conditions of the site, which are analysed using a language analysis system and which may be a large language model (par 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot with the filters of Chugh because It helps users to more effectively communicate in writing (Chugh; par 1).
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot in view of Arumugam Maharaja (“Arumugam”, US 20230107806).
Regarding Claim 59, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot teach a computer system according to claim 51.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include past security incidents relating to the user.
Arumugam teaches wherein the parameters include past security incidents relating to the user (par 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot with the device and user history of Arumugam because it prevents malicious devices from accessing the system, thereby improving security.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot in view of Sun et al (“Sun”, US 20220385400).
Regarding Claim 60, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot teach a computer system according to claim 51.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include an indication whether the user’s device is updated.
Sun teaches wherein the parameters include an indication whether the user’s device is updated (par 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot with the checking of updates of Sun because it ensures that devices have the correct configuration when being updated in order to prevent errors.
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot in view of Zhao et al (“Zhao”, US 20170111292).
Regarding Claim 61, Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot teach a computer system according to claim 51.
Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot do not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include the time of the request.
Zhao teaches wherein the parameters include the time of the request (par 73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle, Yu, Ozonat, and Piernot with the request timestamp of Zhao because it allows for administrators to know when a request is sent, which may be helpful for measuring performance and for debugging errors.
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Ozonat.
Regarding Claim 62, Doyle teaches a computer-implemented method for service security control, comprising:
receiving, by a processor, user input requesting access to a service accessible from the processor, wherein the user input identifies the service and includes a natural language justification for requesting access (par 48);
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 (par 48-49; The similarity score is the relevance score which is a comparison between the semantic information for the content item (parameters for the service) with the semantic information for justification information (natural language justification).).
Doyle does not explicitly teach wherein the natural language justification comprises a description of the functionality of the service from the user.
Ozonat teaches wherein the natural language justification comprises a description of the functionality of the service from the user (Fig. 2, elements {210, 215}, Fig. 3, elements {300-380}, Col. 3 lines 7-67, Col. 4 lines 1-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Doyle with the service description analysis of Ozonat because it allows for a user to further refine service requirements in order to obtain a service that is tailored to the needs of the user (Col. 2 lines 33-52).
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.
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