DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
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 .
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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan 7/6/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not perfected priority. Therefore effective filing date of application is 4/25/2024.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/25/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Foreign Patent Item Number 2 is not translated to English. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, 5, and 6, recite “generating corresponding information in which a predetermined policy,...” do not appear to make grammatical sense, it is not clear what in which is applied to? Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-4 are objected based on dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Regarding claim 1 this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP §2106.03. The claim recites a medium; thus, the claim is directed to a machine which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The limitations “generating correspondence information in which a predetermined policy, a predetermined variable..to which the predetermined policy is applied in a predetermined sequence, and ...specifies a value of the predetermined variable that is selectable by the user are associated with each other; narrowing an execution result .... to a value that satisfies the predetermined policy based on the correspondence information in a case where ... executed according to the predetermined sequence” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. 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. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
The claim recites the following additional elements “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to execute processing according to a sequence that includes an operation of a user, using an application program interface (API),” “of a first API,” “a second API that specifies a value,” “the second API,” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. generic medium, program, API) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “presenting a result narrowed as a selectable value for the predetermined variable to the user” does not amount to a practical application, because it fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “result,” and it is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to execute processing according to a sequence that includes an operation of a user, using an application program interface (API),” “of a first API,” “a second API that specifies a value,” “the second API,” are merely a generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims include additional elements of “presenting a result narrowed as a selectable value for the predetermined variable to the user” does not amount an inventive concept, because it fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “result” and it is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 2, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims include additional elements “wherein the processing of generating the correspondence information includes extracting a variable in the first API, based on an API definition of the first API, specifying the predetermined policy to be applied to the predetermined variable from among a plurality of policies, based on setting information of each of the plurality of policies registered in advance, specifying the second API based on information regarding the predetermined sequence, and generating the correspondence information in association with the specified predetermined policy, the predetermined variable, and the specified second API.” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor is significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to a mental process of generating correspondence information and is an abstract idea. The additional elements of the first API, the second API are generic computing components to perform the judicial exception and is neither a practical application nor an inventive concept.
Claim 3 is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims include additional elements “wherein the processing of presenting the narrowed result to the user includes, in a case where the execution result is narrowed to one specific value, assuming that the specific value is selected by the user and generating information to be presented to the user” does not amount to a practical application or an inventive concept, because it fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “result” and it is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 4, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims include additional elements “wherein the processing of presenting the narrowed result to the user includes, in a case where the execution result is narrowed to a plurality of values, acquiring attribute information of each of the plurality of values, sorting the plurality of values in order of the included attribute information with a higher frequency to be selected, and presenting the values to the user” does not amount to a practical application or an inventive concept, because it fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “result” and it is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 5, is an independent method claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 6, is an independent device claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. In addition, the claim recites two additional elements –processor and memory--. The processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2017/0099292) in view of Bolignano et al. (U.S. Patent 11,483,317).
Regarding claim 1, Kelley teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to execute processing (see ¶[0082] “medium”) according to a sequence that includes an operation of a user, using an application program interface (API) (see ¶[0027] “s described herein, an entity may be a human user having a user account or a nonhuman user such as an application or service. The objects for which access is requested may be files, applications, services, APIs, or other digital objects present in the environment of the access management system 100”),
the processing comprising: generating correspondence information in which a predetermined policy (see ¶[0030] “The information associated with a particular API call may include an identifier of the user or role (or application having been assigned a role) that called the API, the API called, the time of the call, the source IP address of the caller, parameters included in the API call, and any responses returned including error messages such as an access denied error.”),
a predetermined variable of a first API to which the predetermined policy is applied in a predetermined sequence (see ¶[0032] “For example, the access policy 134A may be associated with a first application deployed within the distributed computing infrastructure 120. The access policy may indicate a list of objects that the application may access. For example, the access policy 134A may list a plurality of APIs that the first application has permission to call.”), and
a second API that specifies a value of the predetermined variable that is selectable by the user are associated with each other (see ¶[0065] “When the first application enters or approaches a follow-on stage of development, the first application may need to call the second API to implement features to be deployed by the first application in this subsequent stage of development.”).
Kelley does not expressly disclose, however, Bolignano teaches narrowing an execution result of the second API to a value that satisfies the predetermined policy based on the correspondence information in a case where the second API is executed according to the predetermined sequence (see col. 27, lines 15-25, “For example, in the case where a first policy is more permissive than a second policy, the equivalence result 812 may encode a set of parameters that results in a grant of access by the first policy and a denial of access by the second policy (e.g., a principal, resource, and action may be encoded in the response such that a first policy will grant access to the principal to perform the action on the resource and the second policy will deny access to the principal from performing the action on the resource).”); and
presenting a result narrowed as a selectable value for the predetermined variable to the user (see col. 27, lines 10-15 “the equivalence result 812 may be transmitted to the client computing device 802 as a response to a web API request. In”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Kelley by adapting Bolignano to enable additional permissions that enable access to additional computing resources (see col. 1, lines 30-40 of Bolignano).
Regarding claim 2, Kelley teaches wherein the processing of generating the correspondence information includes extracting a variable in the first API, based on an API definition of the first API, specifying the predetermined policy to be applied to the predetermined variable from among a plurality of policies, based on setting information of each of the plurality of policies registered in advance (see ¶[0034] “The period of observation may be used as an alternative or as a second thresholding variable. If the first application calls the first API at all during the period of observation, then the access management server 102 may not modify the access policy of the first application. Accordingly, the period of observation may be adjusted to a longer or a shorter time as desired. For example, the period of observation may be set to a day, a week, or a month.”), specifying the second API based on information regarding the predetermined sequence, and generating the correspondence information in association with the specified predetermined policy, the predetermined variable, and the specified second API (see ¶[0064] “For example, the access management server 102 may receive application request information from the request log 124 of the distributed computing infrastructure 120. Based on the usage or number of calls to a second API included in an access list of the first application, the processing device may determine that the usage of the second API the first application is less than a threshold usage value.”).
Regarding claim 3, Kelley does not expressly disclose, however, Bolignano teaches wherein the processing of presenting the narrowed result to the user includes, in a case where the execution result is narrowed to one specific value, assuming that the specific value is selected by the user and generating information to be presented to the user (see col. 41, lines 15-40, “A fuzzer may be a software module that includes executable code configurable to test software components by determining a set of inputs to an interface and verify that the outputs match expected values. For example, a fuzzer could be utilized to test the arithmetic operations of a processor by selecting a set of inputs from a lookup table and performing a set of operations (e.g., division) and verify that the results are correct based on an output lookup table. A fuzzer may select a set of parameters (e.g., a principal, an action, and a computing resource) and determine whether a request corresponding to the set of parameters would be fulfilled under the security policy of the request and the reference policy. If one policy would fulfill the request and the other would deny the request, then the relative permissiveness of the two policies may be determined (e.g., that one policy is more permissive than the other, the two policies are incomparable, and so on). In some embodiments, the fuzzer may have a predetermined list of parameters that it tests.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Kelley by adapting Bolignano to enable additional permissions that enable access to additional computing resources (see col. 1, lines 30-40 of Bolignano).
Regarding claim 4, Kelley does not expressly disclose, however, Bolignano teaches wherein the processing of presenting the narrowed result to the user includes, in a case where the execution result is narrowed to a plurality of values, acquiring attribute information of each of the plurality of values, sorting the plurality of values in order of the included attribute information with a higher frequency to be selected, and presenting the values to the user (see col. 28, lines 1-20, “Each user, group, role, or other such collection of principals may have a corresponding user definition, group definition, role definition, or other definition that defines the attributes and/or membership of that collection. For example, a group may be a group of principals that have the same geographical location. The definition of that group of principals may include the membership of the group, the location, and other data and/or metadata associated with that group. As used herein, a principal is an entity corresponding to an identity managed by the computing resource service provider, where the computing resource service provider manages permissions for the identity and where the entity may include one or more sub-entities, which themselves may have identities.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Kelley by adapting Bolignano to enable additional permissions that enable access to additional computing resources (see col. 1, lines 30-40 of Bolignano).
Regarding claim 5, is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 6, is a device claim corresponding to claim 1. In addition, Kelley teaches an information processing device comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (see Fig, 2, 204 memory and processing device 202).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.Kim et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2004/0015369) teaches managing versions of a document, which can manage a variation history of the document and minimize the stored data of the document, and a method for managing versions of a document using the same. The workflow system includes the workflow engine, which consists of a flow control module for generating a control command according to a command from a client computer or self operation, a DB storage module for storing process definition defined in the client computer and information on a document file stored in an EDMS server in a database, and a file management module for calling a function for managing the document file from the EDMS server, and the adapter module for interface between the workflow engine and the EDMS server. The EDMS database for the workflow system stores the document file by using an extensible markup language, and the workflow engine compares a before-correction document with an after-correction document, stores the corrected document file in the EDMS database by using XML tags, and generates a final document file by combining the before-correction document file and the corrected document file, thereby minimizing the data storage of the document.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARINA YUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-4 (EST).
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 call.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
Carina Yun
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/CARINA YUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights