DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 04/26/24. Claims 1-20 are still pending and have been considered below.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 recite the limitation "the protected resource" throughout the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Examiner notes that the preceding claim language appears to establish at least two separate and distinct instances of “a protected resource”; thus, render the claims indefinite in that it is unclear as to which one the limitation in question should be in reference to.
Claims 3, 11 and 17 recite the limitation "the elevated permission" throughout the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Examiner notes that the preceding claim language appears to establish a first instance of “elevated permission” in addition to a separate and distinct instance of “elevated permissions”; thus, render the claims indefinite in that it is unclear as to which one the limitation in question should be in reference to.
Claims 11-13 and 15 recite the limitation "the operations" throughout the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Examiner notes that in view of paragraph [0036] of the Specification filed on 04/26/24, the term “computer readable storage medium” cannot be reasonably understood to encompass signals per se; thus, is interpreted as being directed to statutory subject matter.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vainstein (RE41,546).
Claim 1: Vainstein discloses a computer program product for managing access to a protected resource in a computing system, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therein that when executed performs operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a command from a first computer process to perform an operation effecting a protected resource in the computing system(user attempts access to a secured file from local client machine) [column 8, lines 15-25 & 35-45];
determining whether the command satisfies a security requirement of the protected resource(user has the need-to-know basis to access the file but no account is available) [column 8, lines 40-50];
in response to determining that the command does not satisfy the security requirement of the protected resource, transmitting information indicating that the command did not satisfy the security requirement for the protected resource to one of the first computer process or a second computer process controlling whether to elevate permission to the protected resource(determine whether or not and/or which clearance key(s) to generate for the user based on one or more received parameters) [column 8, lines 50-67 | column 9, lines 1-10 & 35-45]; and
providing the first computer process elevated permission to perform the command to affect the protected resource in response to the second computer process providing the elevated permission for the command from the first computer process to affect the protected resource(after proper clearance key is generated, the key is associated with the account so that the user will use the key to access secure file) [column 9, lines 55-65].
Claim 5: Vainstein discloses the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the first computer process comprises a first host, and the second computer process comprises a second host that established the protected resource [column 8, lines 25-35].
Claim 6: Vainstein discloses the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining hosts that registered to monitor the protected resource(secured file includes set of rules for the document that regulate who/how it can be accessed, and also when and where it can be accessed and additional security clearance information) [column 6, lines 15-25]; and transmitting notification to the determined hosts with information on the command from the first computer process that would affect the protected resource [column 8, lines 50-67].
Claim 8: Vainstein discloses the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the command affects the protected resource by performing one of modifying data of the protected resource and causing a relationship of the protected resource to fail [column 7, lines 35-45].
Claim 10: Vainstein discloses a system for managing access to a protected resource in a computing system, comprising:
a processor [column 3, lines 25-35]; and
a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therein that when executed performs:
receiving a command from a first computer process to perform an operation effecting a protected resource in the computing system [column 8, lines 15-25 & 35-45];
determining whether the command satisfies a security requirement of the protected resource [column 8, lines 40-50];
in response to determining that the command does not satisfy the security requirement of the protected resource, transmitting information indicating that the command did not satisfy the security requirement for the protected resource to one of the first computer process or a second computer process controlling whether to elevate permission to the protected resource [column 8, lines 50-67 | column 9, lines 1-10 & 35-45]; and
providing the first computer process elevated permission to perform the command to affect the protected resource in response to the second computer process providing the elevated permission for the command from the first computer process to affect the protected resource [column 9, lines 55-65].
Claim 14: Vainstein discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the command affects the protected resource by performing one of modifying data of the protected resource and causing a relationship of the protected resource to fail [column 7, lines 35-45].
Claim 16: Vainstein discloses a method for managing access to a protected resource in a computing system, comprising:
receiving a command from a first computer process to perform an operation effecting a protected resource in the computing system [column 8, lines 15-25 & 35-45];
determining whether the command satisfies a security requirement of the protected resource [column 8, lines 40-50];
in response to determining that the command does not satisfy the security requirement of the protected resource, transmitting information indicating that the command did not satisfy the security requirement for the protected resource to one of the first computer process or a second computer process controlling whether to elevate permission to the protected resource [column 8, lines 50-67 | column 9, lines 1-10 & 35-45]; and
providing the first computer process elevated permission to perform the command to affect the protected resource in response to the second computer process providing the elevated permission for the command from the first computer process to affect the protected resource [column 9, lines 55-65].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7, 9, 11-13, 15 and 17-20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Anderson et al. (2018/0121665).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ZEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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 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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435