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 Arguments
Applicant's amendments and remarks filed 04/24/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3,5-6,8-11 have been amended. Claims 4,7 have been cancelled. Claim 13-18 has been added. In summary, claims 1-3,5-6,8-18 are pending in this application. Applicant's amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth herein; according this action is made final.
Claim Interpretation:
Applicant has amended claims to recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so the claims 1-3, 5-6, 8 are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3,5-6,8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the input attribute value" in line 13. It is unclear if “the input attribute value” refer to step of “input of the first attribute value” or something else.
Claims 2-3,5-6, 8, 13-14 are rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the determined attribute value" in line 10. It is unclear if “the determined attribute value” refer to step of “determine the second attribute value” or something else.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the determined attribute value" in line 10. It is unclear if “the determined attribute value” refer to step of “determine the second attribute value” or something else.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the input attribute value" in lines 9-10. It is unclear if “the input attribute value” refer to step of “input of the first attribute value” or something else.
Claims 10,15-16 are rejected based on the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the input attribute value" in lines 10-11. It is unclear if “the input attribute value” refer to step of “input of the first attribute value” or something else.
Claims 12, 17-18 are rejected based on the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the determined attribute value" in line 3. It is unclear if “the attribute values” refer to “first attribute value” or “second attribute value” or both “first attribute value and second attribute value” or something else.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the determined attribute value" in line 2. It is unclear if “the attribute values” refer to “first attribute value” or “second attribute value” or both “first attribute value and second attribute value” or something else.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the determined attribute value" in line 4. It is unclear if “the attribute values” refer to “first attribute value” or “second attribute value” or both “first attribute value and second attribute value” or something else.
Note: No prior art found disclose or render obvious independent claims 1, 9 and 11
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Costello et al, U.S Patent Application Publication No.20230267225- Dynamic evaluation of data store access store permissions is disclosed: obtaining a set of record identifiers (IDs) associated with a selected data store associated with an external system; determining record-level access permissions associated with a user for records in the selected data store associated with the set of record IDs; inferring one or more data store-level access permissions associated with the user for the selected data store based at least in part on the record-level access permissions associated with the user for the records in the selected data store; and presenting the inferred one or more data store-level access permissions associated with the user at a user interface.
2.IKEDA et al, U.S Patent Application Publication No. 20130097665 - According to one embodiment, an access control apparatus suspends the resource access event prior to access of the resource access device when the resource access event is started. The access control apparatus acquires attribute information from the attribute management device by using the deny-type policy in the access control policy and decides the permission or the denial of the access based on this attribute information and the deny-type policy. The access control apparatus releases the suspension when a result of decision in the supplied access decision result is indicative of the permission and no obligation-type policy is present in the access decision response.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH LE whose telephone number is (571)270-7842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 8AM-4:30PM EST, Tuesday: 8 AM-3:30PM EST, Wednesday: 8AM-2:30PM EST, Thursday and Friday off.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571) 272-7667. 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.
/SARAH LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights