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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 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.
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.
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-8, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 1, the claim recites a method, therefore is a process.
“ . . . identifying … evaluating … “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The elements of “receiving … receiving … routing … ” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is ineligible.
As discussed above, ““receiving … receiving … routing … ” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do 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 ineligible.
As per claim 2, see rejection on claim 1. “a single pod . . . ” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Reddy. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 3, see rejection on claim 1. “returning a result . . . “ amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). “wherein the remote system is a software deployment system running a software application using the one or more machine components; and wherein the command captures information about a runtime state of the one or more machine components“ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Reddy. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 4, see rejection on claim 1. “wherein the command is typed into a command line interface (CLI) provided by the web portal, the CLI being identical or substantially identical in appearance to a CLI available through logging directly into the remote system “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Reddy. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 5, see rejection on claim 1. “ identifying … “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. “obtaining . . . “ amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 6, see rejection on claim 1. “wherein the rule comprises a condition on when the command can be executed, a condition on which machine components the command can be applied to, or both“ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Henkens. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 7, see rejection on claim 1. “wherein evaluation of the rule causes a message to be communicated to a second user, the message prompting the second user for input on whether the request should be granted“ amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 8, see rejection on claim 7. “ wherein the rule requires the second user to input the command through a separate web portal“ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Henkens. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 10, see rejection on claim 1. “wherein policy associated with the user comprises a set of rules for determining when the user is permitted to execute commands on the remote system, each rule in the set of rules being applicable to a different command” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Reddy2. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 12, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 3.
As per claim 14, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 15, see rejection on claim 5.
As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 6.
As per claim 17, see rejection on claim 7.
As per claim 18, see rejection on claim 8.
As per claim 20, see rejection on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reddy et al (US 2003/0233431) (hereinafter Reddy) .
As per claim 1, Reddy teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a computer system through a web portal, a request to execute a command on a remote system (Reddy, [0076]—under BRI, a request to execute a command on a remote system can be ls command ;a web portal can be he management system 20) , wherein the request is generated in response to a user inputting the command at the web portal (Reddy, [0076]—under BRI, a user inputting can be inputting on the shell command program 25A on the management system);
receiving, by the computer system through the web portal, an indication of one or more machine components of the remote system to which the command is to be applied (Reddy, [0077]—under BRI, an indication of one or more machine components of the remote system to which the command is to be applied can be indication that a user is a local user associated with target server 15A);
identifying, by the computer system, a policy associated with the user (Reddy, [0076]), wherein the policy includes a rule governing usage of the command (Reddy, [0076]—under BRI, a rule can be the policy governing authentication of use );
evaluating, by the computer system, the rule to determine whether the user is permitted to execute the command with respect to the one or more machine components (Reddy, [0076]); and
routing, by the computer system, the command to the remote system for execution based on determining that the rule is satisfied (Reddy, [0076]—under BRI, routing can be sending the abstract system call to the virtual server client 30 to proceed with the user's 10 request ).
As per claim 2, Reddy teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1), wherein the remote system has a pod architecture comprising a plurality of pods grouped into two or more clusters (Reddy, Fig 1 15A-D), and wherein the indication of one or more machine components of the remote system to which the command is to be applied comprises information identifying:
a single pod among the plurality of pods (Reddy, Fig 1 15A-D), a single cluster among the two or more clusters, or a subset of pods within the same cluster.
As per claim 3, Reddy teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1(see rejection on claim 1) , further comprising:
returning a result of executing the command to a computing device of the user through the web portal (Reddy, [0077]);
wherein the remote system is a software deployment system running a software application using the one or more machine components (Reddy, Fig 1 1 15A-D); and
wherein the command captures information about a runtime state of the one or more machine components(Reddy, [0077]—under BRI, information about a runtime state of the one or more machine components can information about the result of ls command) .
As per claim 4, Reddy teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1), wherein the command is typed into a command line interface (CLI) provided by the web portal (Reddy, [0076]—under BRI, CLI can be shell command program 25A), the CLI being identical or substantially identical in appearance to a CLI available through logging directly into the remote system (Reddy, [0076]—under BRI, substantially identical in appearance to a CLI can be appearance like a CLI).
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 1
As per claim 12, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 3.
As per claim 14, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 20, see rejection on claim 1.
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 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Kacy et al (US 7340508) (hereinafter Kacy).
As per claim 5, Reddy teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1).
Reddy does not expressly teach:
further comprising:
obtaining a stored mapping between roles and policies, each role being assignable to one or more users and mapped to one or more policies; and
identifying the policy associated with the user as being a policy to which a role assigned to the user is mapped.
However, Kasi discloses:
further comprising:
obtaining a stored mapping between roles and policies, each role being assignable to one or more users and mapped to one or more policies (Kasi, col 17, ll 16-19—an obtaining step existed in order to [based on the privileges assigned to the user] choose to render completely different pages, or the same page with different options enabled); and
identifying the policy associated with the user as being a policy to which a role assigned to the user is mapped (Kasi, col 17, ll16-19—identifying can be identifying whether a user can render completely different pages).
Both Kasi and Reddy pertain to the art of policy enforcement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kasi’s method to obtain mapping between policy and roles because by assigning specific duties (roles) to bounded system rights (privileges), organizations limit blast radiuses, enforce the principle of least privilege, and simplify auditing across environments.
As per claim 15, see rejection on claim 5.
Claims 6-8, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Henkens et al (US 11778023 ) (hereinafter Henkens).
As per claim 6, Reddy teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Reddy does not expressly teach:
wherein the rule comprises a condition on when the command can be executed, a condition on which machine components the command can be applied to, or both.
However, Henkens discloses:
wherein the rule comprises a condition on when the command can be executed (Henkens, col 1, ll 36-38), a condition on which machine components the command can be applied to, or both.
Both Henkens and Reddy pertain to the art of policy enforcement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Henkens’ method to use a condition on when the command can be executed because this gatekeeping prevents unauthorized changes, reduces operational errors, stops runaway spending, and creates a clear audit trail for compliance
As per claim 7, Reddy teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Reddy does not expressly teach:
wherein evaluation of the rule causes a message to be communicated to a second user, the message prompting the second user for input on whether the request should be granted.
However, Henkens discloses:
wherein evaluation of the rule causes a message to be communicated to a second user, the message prompting the second user for input on whether the request should be granted (Henkens, col 1, ll 36-37—under BRI, for input on whether the request should be granted can be accepting invitations).
Both Henkens and Reddy pertain to the art of policy enforcement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Henkens’ method to approve requests because this gatekeeping prevents unauthorized changes, reduces operational errors, stops runaway spending, and creates a clear audit trail for compliance.
As per claim 8, Reddy/Henkens teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 7 (see rejection on claim 7), wherein the rule requires the second user to input the command through a separate web portal (Henkens, col 1, ll 36-37).
As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 6.
As per claim 17, see rejection on claim 7.
As per claim 18, see rejection on claim 8.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Reddy e al (US 2024/0346159 ) (hereinafter Reddy2).
As per claim 10, Reddy teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Reddy does not expressly teach:
wherein the policy associated with the user comprises a set of rules for determining when the user is permitted to execute commands on the remote system, each rule in the set of rules being applicable to a different command.
However, Reddy2 discloses
wherein the policy associated with the user comprises a set of rules for determining when the user is permitted to execute commands on the remote system, each rule in the set of rules being applicable to a different command (Reddy2, [0045]).
Both Reddy2 and Reddy pertain to the art of policy enforcement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Reddy2’s method to use sudoers because sudo and the sudoers configuration file in Linux provides granular control over administrative privileges, eliminating the security risk of sharing the root password.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11785469 teaches a method of using sudoers to control access privileges.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights