CTNF 18/544,153 CTNF 82218 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-30 are presented for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim is directed to a apparatus. Therefore, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. In step 2A prong 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim recites a judicial exception. Specifically, the limitations “detect a first identifier associated with the entity; compare the first identifier with first owner information specified in the first entry of the resource tracking table; and control access from the entity to the first entry based on the comparing” recite mental processes. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A. In step 2A prong 2 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following rationale: The limitation “an apparatus, comprising: at least one memory for storing a resource tracking table; and a controller unit coupled to the at least one memory, the controller unit is configured to” apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer. "Alappat 's rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court's Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions" so therefore applying judicial exceptions on a management entity which are generic computers does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)). The limitations “receive a request by an entity to access a first entry in the resource tracking table, the first entry corresponding to a first resource of a computing system” represent insignificant, extra-solution activities. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as "activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim" (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The examiner has determined that the limitations “identifying, a plurality of time intervals having a use of a resource on a machine above a threshold” and “identifying, a percentage of the use of the resource by each of a plurality processes on the machine using the resource during each time interval of the plurality of time intervals” are directed to mere data gathering activities which is a category of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)). In step 2B of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not recite significantly more than the abstract ideas identified above for the following rationale: The limitation “an apparatus, comprising: at least one memory for storing a resource tracking table; and a controller unit coupled to the at least one memory, the controller unit is configured to” apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer and therefore do not provide significantly more. The limitations “receive a request by an entity to access a first entry in the resource tracking table, the first entry corresponding to a first resource of a computing system” represent insignificant, extra-solution activities and are well-understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d)). These are additional elements that the courts have recognized as well understood, routine, or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The citation of court cases in the MPEP meets the Berkheimer evidentiary burden since citation of a court case in the MPEP is one of the 4 types of evidentiary support that can be used to prove that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional (see 125 USPQ2d 1649 Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.). Thus, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 2, it recites, “in which the entity has a higher privilege level than a privilege level associated with the first resource of the first entry and the controller unit denies access to the first entry by the entity if the first identifier does not match the first owner information” which further describes the abstract idea. Regarding claim 3, it recites, “in which the controller unit permits the entity to access or modify the first entry if the first identifier matches the first owner information” which further describes the abstract idea. Regarding claim 4, it recites, “in which the entity has access privileges for at least a second resource in a same domain as the first resource of the first entry and the controller unit denies access by the entity” which further describes the abstract idea. Regarding claim 5, it recites, “in which the entity has a lower privilege level than a privilege level of the first resource of the first entry and the controller unit permits the entity to update the first entry based on the comparing” which further describes the abstract idea. Regarding claim 6, it recites, “in which the first entry includes a set of properties associated with the first resource and the controller unit denies access to the first entry corresponding to the first resource if the first identifier does not match the first owner information” which further describes the abstract idea. Regarding claim 7, it recites, “in which the set of properties include one or more of an access control policy or an encryption key associated with the first resource” which further describes the abstract idea. Regarding claim 8, it recites, “in which the access control policy specifies that the entity has access privileges to the first resource and the controller unit denies access to the first entry if the first identifier does not match the first owner information” which further describes the abstract idea. Regarding claim 9, it recites, “in which the first entry is stored in memory or register files associated with an initiator” which further describes the abstract idea. Regarding claim 10, it recites, “in which the resource tracking table includes a second entry corresponding to a second resource and the first owner information of the first entry is different than a second owner information of the second entry” which further describes the abstract idea. Regarding claims 11-30, they are the method, computer-readable medium and apparatus claims of claims 1-10 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-10 above. Additionally, claim 21-28 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code recorded thereon, the program code executed by a processor” which are generic computing components that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and do not provide significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dawson et al. (US PG Pub No. 2011/258234 A1) . Dawson was disclosed in IDS dated 10/28/2024. Regarding claim 1, Dawson teaches an apparatus ([0060] server agent), comprising: at least one memory for storing a resource tracking table ([0083] a set of entries with access control lists; [0088] entry database 76); and a controller unit coupled to the at least one memory (Fig. 1; claim 7; [0114], implementation with processor), the controller unit is configured to: receive a request by an entity to access a first entry in the resource tracking table ([0064] the owner of the entry requests additions to the access control list), the first entry corresponding to a first resource of a computing system ([0060] the entries correspond to documents); detect a first identifier associated with the entity; compare the first identifier with first owner information specified in the first entry of the resource tracking table ([0081-0083] the entries in the entry table have an owner whose identity is verified against the identity of the requester for an entry change); and control access from the entity to the first entry based on the comparing ([0064]; [0106] the owner of the entry can edit the entry by editing the access control list). Regarding claim 2, Dawson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, in which the entity has a higher privilege level than a privilege level associated with the first resource of the first entry and the controller unit denies access to the first entry by the entity if the first identifier does not match the first owner information ([0109]). Regarding claim 3, Dawson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, in which the controller unit permits the entity to access or modify the first entry if the first identifier matches the first owner information ([0109]). Regarding claim 4, Dawson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, in which the entity has access privileges for at least a second resource in a same domain as the first resource of the first entry and the controller unit denies access by the entity ([0109]). Regarding claim 5, Dawson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, in which the entity has a lower privilege level than a privilege level of the first resource of the first entry and the controller unit permits the entity to update the first entry based on the comparing ([0053-54]). Regarding claim 6, Dawson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, in which the first entry includes a set of properties associated with the first resource and the controller unit denies access to the first entry corresponding to the first resource if the first identifier does not match the first owner information ([0109]). Regarding claim 7, Dawson teaches the apparatus of claim 6, in which the set of properties include one or more of an access control policy or an encryption key associated with the first resource ([0053]). Regarding claim 8, Dawson teaches the apparatus of claim 7, in which the access control policy specifies that the entity has access privileges to the first resource and the controller unit denies access to the first entry if the first identifier does not match the first owner information ([0109]). Regarding claim 9, Dawson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, in which the first entry is stored in memory or register files associated with an initiator ([0110]). Regarding claim 10, Dawson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, in which the resource tracking table includes a second entry corresponding to a second resource and the first owner information of the first entry is different than a second owner information of the second entry ([0060]). Regarding claims 11-30, they are the method, computer-readable medium and apparatus claims of claims 1-10 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-10 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C WAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1012. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5. 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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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. /Eric C Wai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/544,153 Page 2 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/544,153 Page 3 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/544,153 Page 4 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/544,153 Page 5 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/544,153 Page 6 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/544,153 Page 9 Art Unit: 2195
