otice 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
The instant application having Application No. 18/631,160 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USP Application Publication 2015/0030313 to Tammisalo et al., hereinafter Tammisalo.
As per claims 1, 13, and 20, Tammisalo teaches providing, by a device [140], a remote access session to a remote device [109 server] for both a user device [client device 100] and an overseeing device [device used by the monitoring user; 0063] , wherein the overseeing device displays user device actions on the remote access session (0023 and 0063);
determining, by the device [the hound 140 performs client authentication and authorization; 0038], a set of permitted actions [permits access to server; 0061] and a set of restricted actions that the user device is allowed to perform on the remote device in the remote access session [these are the certain commands or actions that need a monitoring user to accept; 0063]
allowing, by the device, user device actions when permitted [implied commands that are allowed without the monitoring user’s input because only certain file transfers and commands require the monitoring user be present; 0061-0063]; and
requesting by the device, real-time permission from the overseeing device when user device action is restricted (0063).
As per claim 2, Tammisalo teaches approving the user device actions based on the overseeing device providing permission; or denying the user device actions based on the overseeing device not providing permission [monitoring user gives input to accept/deny/terminate the session; 0063].
As per claims 3 and 14, Tammisalo teaches the user device displays a view of an interface associated with the remote device [the client device displays the connection to the server such as an SSH or RDP connection; 0023],and
the overseeing device displays the view of the interface associated with the remote device (0063) with enhanced contextual information [real-time video is generated of the client’s interaction with the server and features are highlighted; 0043 and 0047].
As per claims 4 and 15, Tammisalo teaches the enhanced contextual information includes a banner that tracks movements performed by the user device or actions performed by the user device, or both (0043).
As per claims 5 and 16, Tammisalo teaches the enhanced contextual information includes visual indicators or textual indications, or both, of actions performed by the user device (0042 and 0043).
As per claims 6 and 17, Tammisalo teaches the enhanced contextual information includes a historical account of past actions performed by the user device [the video captures the cursor movement and mouse clicks as a video recording of the session which is saved as an audit log in the vault; 0027 and 0043].
As per claims 7 and 18, Tammisalo teaches the enhanced contextual information is selected from a group consisting of: colored dots for clicks, keyboard commands, keyboard shortcuts, mouse drags, mouse actions, and information on actions inputted to the user device [mouse actions and commands; 0043 and 0063].
As per claim 8, Tammisalo teaches the set of permitted actions includes keyboard actions performed by the user device, mouse drags performed by the user device, or both [not every action the user makes is suspended but they are recorded; 0043].
As per claims 9 and 19, Tammisalo teaches the set of restricted actions are selected from a group consisting of: a type of mouse click input, an instruction to submit a command (0063), an instruction to execute a command, an instruction to start a program, an instruction to stop a program, an instruction to edit a file, and an instruction to submit a form.
As per claim 10, Tammisalo teaches the real-time permission from the overseeing device is selected from a group consisting of: a user of the overseeing device performing a mouse click operation, a user of the overseeing device performing a key stroke operation, a user of the overseeing device selecting an approve action, and a user of the overseeing device selecting a deny action (0063).
As per claim 11, Tammisalo teaches the set of permitted actions and the set of restricted actions are based in part on administrator-defined rules [enforces policies of the network; 0027].
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tammisalo in view of USP Application Publication 2023/0093882 to Waters et al., hereinafter Waters.
As per claim 12, Tammisalo is silent in explicitly teaching the set of permitted actions and the set of restricted actions are based in part on a machine learning model that is trained on approvals and denials of requested permissions over time. On the other hand, Waters teaches the set of permitted actions and the set of restricted actions are based in part on a machine learning model that is trained on approvals and denials of requested permissions over time (0035). Waters shows that an AI can be trained from the decisions of a user granting or deny requests so that it can make those decisions without human intervention. Future decisions can be automated. Tammisalo has monitoring users provide decisions on whether to grant or deny certain user actions. The AI of Waters could have been trained on these decisions to provide more automated decisions and less need to suspend sessions until a user makes authorization decisions. This would provide a streamlined session that leverages the learned previous decisions to avoid needing human supervisor is some cases. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can combine methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the enclosed PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R. VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7316. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:30am - 5:30pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.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.
/MICHAEL R VAUGHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431