CTFR 18/595,781 CTFR 85745 DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to the communication filed on 02/27/2026. Claims 1, 18 and 20 have been amended. No new claims have been added and/or canceled. Claims 1-20 are pending. 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5, 7-9, 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Olden et al (US Pub. No. 2021/0392048 herein after “Olden”) and further in view of Chan et al (US Pub. No. 2025/0227101 herein after “Chan”) . As per claim 1, and similarly claim 18 and 20, Olden discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising: identifying a first entity that is authenticated with respect to a first identity domain (Olden, para[0025,0030] a session may be established by authenticating a user and maintaining the session state; users associated with an identity domain may be granted different levels of access (or authorization) to each service (e.g., cloud service) associated with the identity domain) ; receiving an access request for access to a target resource associated with a second identity domain, wherein the request is associated with the first entity (Olden, para[0034] a request to access a resource) ; based at least in part on the first entity being authenticated with respect to the first identity domain, executing a cross-domain approval process comprising a first approval process with respect to a second identity domain to approve access for the first entity authenticated with respect to the first identity domain, wherein the first identity domain and the second identity domain are different (Olden, para[0029,0042] supporting interactions between an application or protected resource associated with a first identity domain and users associated with a second identity domain; the identity information control system may also support cross-cloud control of multiple identity domains) ; and responsive at least to successfully completing the cross-domain approval process, granting to the first entity, access to a target resource (Olden, para[0034,0040,0043] the connecting agent may grant or deny user access to the protected resource based on the response from the PDP; users of different identity domains may be grant ed access to different services) . Olden does not disclose, however in an analogous art, Chan discloses executing a cross-domain approval process performed by an entity associated with the second identity domain to approve access for the first entity authenticated with respect to the first identity domain (Chan, para[0055-0059] the client is given access to the cloud by…redirecting the client process to command line interface 54…a session level passwordless authentication process is initiated) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chan’s teaching of Cross-Domain Authentication and Access into Olden’s teaching of Controlling Identity Information Across Multiple Identity Domains because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manage access provided to users of cloud platform. As per claim 2 and 19, Olden discloses the non-transitory media of Claim 1, wherein the first identity domain and the second identity domain comprise different identities, and wherein the first identity domain and the second identity domain are federated with different identity providers (Olden, para[0029,0038]) . As per claim 3, Olden discloses the non-transitory media of Claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: selecting the cross-domain approval process, comprising the first approval process with respect to the second identity domain, based on a relationship between the target resource and the second identity domain (Olden, para[0038]) . As per claim 4, Olden discloses the non-transitory media of Claim 1, wherein the first entity is associated with both a first identity principal related to the first identity domain and a second identity principal related to the second identity domain, wherein the first entity is authenticated with respect to the first identity domain based on the first identity principal associated with the first entity, and wherein the cross-domain approval process with respect to the second identity domain is based on the second identity principal associated with the first entity (Olden, para[0034,0055] policies) . As per claim 5, Olden discloses the non-transitory media of Claim 1, wherein the first identity domain and the second identity domain are associated with different authentication processes, and wherein the operations further comprise: Identifying a second entity that is authenticated with respect to the second identity domain; executing the first approval process with respect to the second identity domain to approve access for the second entity authenticated with respect to the second identity domain; and responsive at least to successfully completing the first approval process with respect to the second identity domain to approve access for the second entity, granting, to the first entity, access to a target resource (Olden, para[0025,0030,0034-0043]) . As per claim 7, Olden discloses the non-transitory media of Claim 1, wherein successfully completing the first approval process indicates that the first entity who is authenticated with respect to the first identity domain is also approved for access with respect to the second identity domain (Olden, para[0034-0043]) . As per claim 8, Olden discloses the non-transitory media of Claim 1, wherein granting access the target resource comprises one or more of: adding the first entity to a role associated with having access to the target resource; granting, to the first entity, credentials for accessing the target resource; establishing access policies for the first entity to access the target resource (Olden, para[0044]) . As per claim 9, Olden discloses the non-transitory media of Claim 1, wherein executing the cross-domain approval process is further responsive to authorizing, with respect to the first identity domain, the first entity to make a request for approval (Olden, para[0027,0034]) . As per claim 15, Olden discloses the non-transitory media of Claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a second entity associated with the second identity domain, wherein the second entity has been authenticated by execution of a second authentication process corresponding to the second identity domain; authorizing the second entity, associated with the second identity domain, by executing a second authorization process corresponding to the second identity domain; and wherein the second entity is permitted to perform a second operation that accesses a second resource based at least in part on the second authorization process (Olden, para[0025,0030,0034-0043]) . As per claim 17, Olden discloses the non-transitory media of Claim 1, wherein the first identity domain is associated with a cloud provider and the second identity domain is associated with a cloud reseller (Olden, para[0087]), (Srinivasan, para[0167]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 6, 10-14 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Natisha Cox whose telephone number is (571) 270-7167. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10am - 6:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached on (571)270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8000. 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://pairdirect.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. /NATISHA D COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/595,781 Page 2 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/595,781 Page 3 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/595,781 Page 4 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/595,781 Page 5 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/595,781 Page 6 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/595,781 Page 7 Art Unit: 2458
Prosecution Insights