DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a reply to the amendment filed on 11/26/2025, in which, claim(s) 21-40 are pending. Claim(s) 28 is amended. Claim(s) 1-20 are cancelled. No claim(s) are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objection:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to objection of claim(s) 28 have been considered. The objection of claim(s) 28 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim.
Double Patenting Rejection:
Applicant’s remarks regarding double patenting rejection have been acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims rejected under prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-20 of Patent 12,034,727.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21-40 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of Patent 12,034,727.
Patent No. 12,034,727 (17/119,855)
Instant Application No. (18/674,692)
Claim 1. A system, comprising:
an access control analyzer comprising one or more processors and one or more memories to store computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
determine a graph comprising a plurality of nodes and one or more directed edges, wherein one or more of the directed edges represent role assumption transitions, wherein the nodes represent a plurality of roles in a provider network hosting a plurality of services and resources, wherein the nodes comprise a first node representing a first role and a second node representing a second role, wherein the roles are assumable by clients or other roles for role sessions and are associated with a plurality of access control policies granting or denying access, based at least in part on one or more key-value tags for a role session, to individual ones of the plurality of services and resources for a role session during which the role is assumed; and
determine, based at least in part on a role reachability analysis of the graph, whether the first role can assume the second role using one or more role assumption steps for a particular state of the one or more key-value tags, wherein an individual one of the role assumption steps provides temporary access during a role session, and wherein the one or more key-value tags comprise one or more transitive tags that persist during the one or more role assumption steps.
Claim 21. A system, comprising:
one or more processors and one or more memories to store computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
select a node of a reachability graph being constructed, wherein one or more neighbors of the selected node are undetermined;
determine a principal and a tag state for the selected node;
for each of one or more candidate roles, of a plurality of roles, that are candidates for being added as a neighbor node of the selected node:
determine, according to a policy and the tag state, whether the selected node can assume the candidate role;
for a determination the selected node can assume the candidate role, add the candidate role to the reachability graph as a neighboring node to the selected node;
for a determination the selected node cannot assume the candidate role, do not add the candidate role to the reachability graph as a neighboring node to the selected node.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHENG-FENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/CHENG-FENG HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497