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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed 02/09/2026. In the instant Amendment, claims 1 and 11 were amended; claims 4 and 14 are cancelled; claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are pending in this application. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
The claim objection to claim 4 has been withdrawn as per applicant’s amendment filed 02/09/2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 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
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandwine et al (“Brandwine,” EP2948840) in view of Felty et al (“Felty,” US 20090138960) and further in view of Badger et al (“Badger,” US 20120304247).
Regarding claim 1, Brandwine discloses a method for controlling access to a resource, comprising:
receiving a request, via a computing system, to access a resource, the resource being associated with at least two of a set of resource tags in a database, (Brandwine describes receiving a request [0008], via a computing system [0028], to access a resource [0013], the resource [0011] being associated with at least two of a set of resource tags [0011] in a database [0012])
a corresponding one of a set of access labels being associated with each of the set of resource tags in the database, (Brandwine describes a corresponding one of a set of access labels [0032], [0031], being associated with each of the set of resource tags [0011] in the database [0012])
each of the set of access labels corresponding to one of a set of access rules in the database, (Brandwine describes [0042] each of the set of access labels corresponding to one of a set of access rules [0032] in the database [0012])
the set of access rules including allow and block; (Brandwine describes the set of access rules [0016], [0042] including allow [0031] and block [0031])
retrieving, for each of the at least two of the set of resource tags, (Brandwine describes [0013] retrieving, for each of the at least two of the set of resource tags [0011])
a corresponding one of the set of access labels in the database; (Brandwine describes a corresponding one of the set of access labels [0016], [0042] in the database [0012])
Brandwine fails to explicitly disclose determining if all of the corresponding ones of the set of access labels are the same; controlling access to the resource according to one of the set of access rules corresponding to the corresponding one of the set of access labels if all of the corresponding ones of the set of access labels are the same; and controlling access to the resource based on a conflict resolution rule if all of the corresponding ones of the set of access labels are not the same.
However, in an analogous art, Felty discloses determining if all of the corresponding ones of the set of access labels are the same; (Felty describes [0049], FIG 1, steps 10 select first rule, 20 select second rule, 30 find common variables between the two rules, 40 find conflict values for common variables which satisfy both first and second rules, 50 check if conflict values exist for all common values and 60 if no then no conflict between the two rules [0012], [0049] and FIG 1 further disclose determining if all of the corresponding ones of the set of access labels are the same)
controlling access to the resource according to one of the set of access rules corresponding to the corresponding one of the set of access labels if all of the corresponding ones of the set of access labels are the same; (Felty describes [0049], FIG 1, steps 10 select first rule, 20 select second rule, 30 find common variables between the two rules, 40 find conflict values for common variables which satisfy both first and second rules, 50 check if conflict values exist for all common values and 60 if no then no conflict between the two rules; [0012], [0049], FIG 1 further describe controlling access to the resource according to one of the set of access rules corresponding to the corresponding one of the set of access labels if all of the corresponding ones of the set of access labels are the same)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Felty with Brandwine to include determining if all of the corresponding ones of the set of access labels are the same; controlling access to the resource according to one of the set of access rules corresponding to the corresponding one of the set of access labels if all of the corresponding ones of the set of access labels are the same. One would have been motivated to detecting conflicts between access control rules which may be used in access control systems that protect assets such as computer firewall applications, electronic documents, and other similar assets (Felty, [0002]).
Brandwine and Felty fail to explicitly disclose controlling access to the resource based on a conflict resolution rule if there is a conflict in the access rules associated with the at least two of the set of resource tags.
However, in an analogous art, Badger discloses controlling access to the resource based on a conflict resolution rule if there is a conflict in the access rules associated with the at least two of the set of resource tags, (Badger discloses in [0048], [0081], [0076]-[0077] controlling access to the resource based on a conflict resolution rule if there is a conflict in the access rules associated with the at least two of the set of resource tags; also see [0084]-[0085] and FIG 7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Badger with Brandwine and Felty to include controlling access to the resource based on a conflict resolution rule if there is a conflict in the access rules associated with the at least two of the set of resource tags. One would have been motivated to provide system and process for hierarchical tagging with permissions in computer network-based file storage and sharing system (Badger, [0002]).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a computing system. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2-3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandwine et al (“Brandwine,” EP2948840), Felty et al (“Felty,” US 20090138960) in view of Badger et al (“Badger,” US 20120304247) and further in view of File et al (“File,” US 20210021595).
Regarding claim 2, Brandwine, Felty and Badger disclose the method of claim 1.
Brandwine, Felty and Badger fail to explicitly disclose further comprising: retrieving the at least two of the resource tags associated with the resource.
However, in an analogous art, File discloses further comprising: retrieving the at least two of the resource tags associated with the resource, (File describes [0037], further comprising: retrieving the at least two of the resource tags associated with the resource)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of File with Brandwine, Felty and Badger to include further comprising: retrieving the at least two of the resource tags associated with the resource. One would have been motivated to provide for monitoring change activity in a cloud computing environment using a machine learning algorithm (File, [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Brandwine, Felty and Badger disclose the method of claim 2.
Brandwine, Felty and Badger fail to explicitly disclose wherein the retrieving the at least two of the resource tags includes requesting the at least two of the resource tags via a network interface of the computing system.
However, in an analogous art, File discloses wherein the retrieving the at least two of the resource tags includes requesting the at least two of the resource tags via a network interface of the computing system, (File describes [0037], [0025], [0056] wherein the retrieving the at least two of the resource tags includes requesting the at least two of the resource tags via a network interface of the computing system)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of File with Brandwine, Felty and Badger to include wherein the retrieving the at least two of the resource tags includes requesting the at least two of the resource tags via a network interface of the computing system. One would have been motivated to provide for monitoring change activity in a cloud computing environment using a machine learning algorithm (File, [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to the computing system of claim 11. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to the computing system of claim 11. Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandwine et al (“Brandwine,” EP2948840), Felty et al (“Felty,” US 20090138960) in view of Badger et al (“Badger,” US 20120304247) and further in view of Raphael et al (“Raphael,” US 20210297451).
Regarding claim 5, Brandwine, Felty and Badger disclose the method of claim 1.
Brandwine, Felty and Badger fail to explicitly disclose wherein the conflict resolution rule is selected from a group including selection of a most permissive one of the access rules corresponding to the access labels corresponding to the at least two of the set of resource tags associated with the resource, or selection of a most protective one of the access rules corresponding to the access labels corresponding to the at least two of the set of resource tags associated with the resource.
However, in an analogous art, Raphael discloses wherein the conflict resolution rule is selected from a group including selection of a most permissive one of the access rules corresponding to the access labels corresponding to the at least two of the set of resource tags associated with the resource, or selection of a most protective one of the access rules corresponding to the access labels corresponding to the at least two of the set of resource tags associated with the resource, (Raphael describes [0068], [0074], [0060] wherein the conflict resolution rule is selected from a group including selection of a most permissive one of the access rules corresponding to the access labels corresponding to the at least two of the set of resource tags associated with the resource, or selection of a most protective one of the access rules corresponding to the access labels corresponding to the at least two of the set of resource tags associated with the resource)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raphael with Brandwine, Felty and Badger to include wherein the conflict resolution rule is selected from a group including selection of a most permissive one of the access rules corresponding to the access labels corresponding to the at least two of the set of resource tags associated with the resource, or selection of a most protective one of the access rules corresponding to the access labels corresponding to the at least two of the set of resource tags associated with the resource. One would have been motivated to enforcement decisions evaluations on assets using rules policies (Raphael, [0001]).
Regarding claim 6, Brandwine, Felty and Badger disclose the method of claim 1.
Brandwine, Felty and Badger fail to explicitly disclose wherein the conflict resolution rule is to send the request to a human for determining whether access to the resource is allowed or blocked.
However, in an analogous art, Raphael discloses wherein the conflict resolution rule is to send the request to a human for determining whether access to the resource is allowed or blocked, (Raphael describes [0074], [0085], [0092], [0053] wherein the conflict resolution rule is to send the request to a human for determining whether access to the resource is allowed or blocked)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raphael with Brandwine, Felty and Badger to include wherein the conflict resolution rule is to send the request to a human for determining whether access to the resource is allowed or blocked. One would have been motivated to enforcement decisions evaluations on assets using rules policies (Raphael, [0001]).
Regarding claim 7, Brandwine, Felty and Badger disclose the method of claim 1.
Brandwine, Felty and Badger fail to explicitly disclose wherein the conflict resolution rule is to send the request to a third-party system determining whether access to the resource is allowed or blocked.
However, in an analogous art, Raphael discloses wherein the conflict resolution rule is to send the request to a third-party system determining whether access to the resource is allowed or blocked, (Raphael discloses [0007] wherein the conflict resolution rule is to send the request to a third-party system [0040] determining whether access to the resource is allowed [0053] or blocked [0053])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raphael with Brandwine, Felty and Badger to include wherein the conflict resolution rule is to send the request to a third-party system determining whether access to the resource is allowed or blocked. One would have been motivated to enforcement decisions evaluations on assets using rules policies (Raphael, [0001]).
Regarding claim 8, Brandwine, Felty and Badger disclose the method of claim 7.
Brandwine, Felty and Badger fail to explicitly disclose wherein the third-party system is an artificial intelligence system.
However, in an analogous art, Raphael discloses wherein the third-party system is an artificial intelligence system, (Raphael discloses wherein the third-party system [0040] is an artificial intelligence system [0085])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raphael with Brandwine, Felty and Badger to include wherein the third-party system is an artificial intelligence system. One would have been motivated to enforcement decisions evaluations on assets using rules policies (Raphael, [0001]).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to the computing system of claim 11. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to the computing system of claim 11. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to the computing system of claim 11. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to the computing system of claim 17. Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandwine et al (“Brandwine,” EP2948840). Felty et al (“Felty,” US 20090138960) in view of Badger et al (“Badger,” US 20120304247) and further in view of Sharma et al (“Sharma,” US 20240323098).
Regarding claim 9, Brandwine, Felty and Badger disclose the method of claim 1.
Brandwine, Felty and Badger fail to explicitly disclose further comprising:
associating at least one of the at least two tags with the resource using a machine-learning model.
However, in an analogous art, Sharma discloses further comprising:
associating at least one of the at least two tags with the resource using a machine-learning model, (Sharma describes [0037]-[0038], [0046] further comprising:
associating at least one of the at least two tags with the resource using a machine-learning model)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sharma with Brandwine, Felty and Badger to include further comprising: associating at least one of the at least two tags with the resource using a machine-learning model. One would have been motivated to provide automated resolution of problem instances (Sharma, [0001]).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandwine et al (“Brandwine,” EP2948840), Felty et al (“Felty,” US 20090138960) in view of Badger et al (“Badger,” US 20120304247) and further in view of Crockett-Grabus et al (“Crockett-Grabus,” WO2023163960).
Regarding claim 10, Brandwine, Felty and Badger disclose the method of claim 1.
Brandwine, Felty and Badger fail to explicitly disclose further comprising:
retrieving a conflict override for one of the at least two of the set of resource tags; and
controlling access to the resource based on the conflict override and the one of the set of access rules corresponding to the corresponding one of the set of access labels.
However, in an analogous art, Crockett-Grabus discloses further comprising:
retrieving a conflict override for one of the at least two of the set of resource tags; and
controlling access to the resource based on the conflict override and the one of the set of access rules corresponding to the corresponding one of the set of access labels, (Crockett-Grabus describes further comprising: retrieving a conflict override (Page 19, Last Paragraph) for one of the at least two of the set of resource tags (Page 18, Second Paragraph; Page 46, Last Paragraph))
and controlling access to the resource (Page 4, Second Paragraph) based on the conflict override (Page 19, Last Paragraph) and the one of the set of access rules (Page 3, First Paragraph) corresponding to the corresponding one of the set of access labels (Page 3, First Paragraph; Page 53, Last Paragraph)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Crockett-Grabus, Brandwine, Felty and Badger to include further comprising: retrieving a conflict override for one of the at least two of the set of resource tags; and controlling access to the resource based on the conflict override and the one of the set of access rules corresponding to the corresponding one of the set of access labels. One would have been motivated to control access to data (Page 4, Second Paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to the computing system of claim 11. Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 10 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandwine et al (“Brandwine,” EP2948840), Felty et al (“Felty,” US 20090138960), Badger et al (“Badger,” US 20120304247) in view of Crockett-Grabus et al (“Crockett-Grabus,” WO2023163960) and further in view of Sharma et al (“Sharma,” US 20240323098).
Regarding claim 19, Brandwine, Felty, Badger and Crockett-Grabus disclose the computing system of claim 10.
Brandwine, Felty, Badger and Crockett-Grabus fail to explicitly disclose wherein the machine-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to associate at least one of the at least two tags with the resource using a machine learning model.
However, in an analogous art, Sharma discloses wherein the machine-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to associate at least one of the at least two tags with the resource using a machine learning model, (Sharma describes [0037]-[0038], [0046] wherein the machine-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to associate at least one of the at least two tags with the resource using a machine learning model)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sharma with Brandwine, Felty, Badger and Crockett-Grabus to include wherein the machine-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to associate at least one of the at least two tags with the resource using a machine learning model. One would have been motivated to provide automated resolution of problem instances (Sharma, [0001]).
Conclusion
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 JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.M..
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, Luu T. Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/JAMES J WILCOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439