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.
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are pending in this office action.
Priority
Priority claimed to PCT/JP2022/002794, filed 01/26/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS's) submitted on 6/25/24, 9/3/2025 and 9/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claims 1, 7 and 8, “the degree of influence” and “the action” have insufficient antecedent basis, wherein “degree” and “action” are not defined. The term “the action” will be interpreted as “the access control action” for the purpose of examination. All of the dependent claims use the term “the action” and/or “the degree of influence” in their respective limitations. Approproate changes are required.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims 1, 7 and 8 recite the steps of acquiring data. The limitations involve data collection, data analysis, analyzing data values and attributes of data elements and drawing further conclusions based on the received data or data patterns. Thus, the claim limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components such as processors and memory. That is, other than reciting certain generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “acquiring data set” and “estimating (determining) order or degree of influence of one pattern over the other” encompass manually or mentally selecting and manipulating data to draw further conclusions regarding the data, i.e., covering data collection and further inference steps based on the collected data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using processor and memory to perform the above steps which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the dependent claims recite activities related to inferring of results collected, and further data derivation steps based on collected, inferred, observed or calculated data. Thus, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor or a piece of code to perform both the data collection and data manipulation to draw inferences or reach a conclusion amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrans et al. (US 2019/0362087 A1, hereinafter Ferrans), in view of Kliger et al. (US 2020/0053090 A1, Kliger hereinafter).
For claim 1, Ferrans teaches an analysis apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (Fig. 1, 11; para 0024, 0102-0103) to: acquire a data set in which a plurality of combinations of a first pattern of one or more elements indicating an access attribute and an access control action associated with the first pattern are defined (para 0018-0019, 0026, 0098 - attributes as patterns, wherein attributes pertain to access scenario such as permissions, and actions pertain to access control or resource access control tasks), and a second pattern of one or more elements indicating an access attribute (para 0033, 0050, 0055, 0066 - other set of attributes pertain to access scenario such as constraints). Although access limit calculation or computation based on limiting factors (para 0031, 0050, 0076, 0079, 0085-0087 - influence of the second pattern influencing the action by using the data set and the second pattern, i.e. constraint type influencing or limiting the action based on restrictions at any level as guided by the role or constraint) is well-known feature in the art, Ferrans does not appear to explicitly disclose, however Kliger discloses estimating at least one of an order or magnitude of the degree of influence with respect to the access action and access attributes (para 0030, 0037, 0069-0070, 0075 - level or threshold indicative of degree of effect of attributes on the access action). Based on Ferrans in view of Kliger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize teachings of Kliger in the system of Ferrans, in order to utilize limits or degree indicative of likelihood or estimation of access limits that affect the access operation, thereby improving access control features in a system to improve system access security.
For claim 2, Ferrans in view of Kliger teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Ferrans further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to: acquire, as the second pattern, a third pattern of one or more elements indicating an access attribute in which at least one of an order or magnitude of the degree of influence influencing the action is defined (para 0019, 0033, 0041, 0050, 0096-0098, 0107 - plurality of requests including attributes as patterns, wherein attributes pertain to access scenario such as permissions, and actions pertain to access control or resource access control tasks), and a fourth pattern of one or more elements indicating an access attribute in which at least one of an order or magnitude of the degree of influence defined in the third pattern is not defined (para 0033, 0050, 0055, 0066 - other set of attributes pertain to access scenario such as constraints in form of plurality of constraint patterns, wherein many types of restrictions are included including new or those not previously defined). Although access limit calculation or computation based on limiting factors (para 0031, 0050, 0076, 0079, 0085-0087 - influence of the second pattern influencing the action by using the data set and the second pattern, i.e. constraint type influencing or limiting the action based on restrictions at any level as guided by the role or constraint) is well-known feature in the art, Ferrans does not appear to explicitly disclose, however Kliger discloses estimating at least one of the order or magnitude of the degree of influence of the fourth pattern influencing the action (para 0030, 0037, 0069-0070, 0075 - level or threshold indicative of degree of effect of attributes on the access action).
For claim 3, Ferrans in view of Kliger teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Ferrans further teaches wherein the action is defined by a totally ordered set (para 0020, 0025, 0055, 0063 - action defined by set of actions and permissions). Ferrans does not appear to explicitly disclose, however Kliger discloses the at least one processor is further configured to estimate at least one of the order or magnitude of the degree of influence so as to become order-isomorphic as the action (Abstract; para 0007-0008, 0031, 0037, 0069-0070, 0075 - level or threshold indicative of degree of effect of attributes on the access action; para 0008-0009, 0035, 0037, 0070, 0076 - order or magnitude of the degree of influence indicated by threshold remains predetermined or unchanged for further comparison, or order-isomorphic).
For claim 4, Ferrans in view of Kliger teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Ferrans further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate a combination of a fifth pattern of one or more elements indicating an access attribute and the action for access control (para 0019, 0033, 0041, 0050, 0096-0098, 0107 - plurality of requests including attributes as patterns, wherein attributes pertain to access scenario such as permissions, and actions pertain to access control or resource access control tasks). Ferrans does not appear to explicitly disclose, however Kliger discloses information of the at least one of the order or magnitude of the degree of influence estimated is stored (para 0030, 0037, 0069-0070, 0075 - level or threshold indicative of degree of effect of attributes on the access action).
For claim 5, Ferrans in view of Kliger teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Ferrans further teaches the analysis apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the influence of the second pattern influencing the action such that the degree of coincidence between the combination of the first pattern defined in the data set and the action and the combination of the fifth pattern generated and the action increases (para 0019, 0033, 0041, 0050, 0096-0098, 0107 - plurality of requests including attributes as patterns, wherein attributes pertain to access scenario such as permissions, and actions pertain to access control or resource access control tasks, other set of attributes pertain to access scenario such as constraints, wherein second pattern of one or more elements indicating an access attribute; the coincidence between the action and the access control attribute are as per constraint and policy compliance). Ferrans does not appear to explicitly disclose, however Kliger discloses estimate at least one of the order or magnitude of the degree of influence of the second pattern influencing the action such that the degree of coincidence between the combination of the first pattern defined in the data set and the action and the combination of the fifth pattern generated and the action increases (para 0030, 0037, 0069-0070, 0075 - level or threshold indicative of degree of effect of attributes on the access action).
For claim 6, Ferrans in view of Kliger teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Ferrans does not appear to explicitly disclose, however Kliger discloses wherein the at least one of the order or magnitude of the degree of influence estimated is visualized and presented to a user (para 0037, 0069, 0132).
For claim 7, Ferrans teaches an analysis method executed by a computer, the analysis method comprising (Fig. 1, 11; para 0024, 0102-0103): acquiring a data set in which a plurality of combinations of a first pattern of one or more elements indicating an access attribute and an access control action associated with the first pattern are defined (para 0018-0019, 0026, 0098 - attributes as patterns, wherein attributes pertain to access scenario such as permissions, and actions pertain to access control or resource access control tasks), and a second pattern of one or more elements indicating an access attribute (para 0033, 0050, 0055, 0066 - other set of attributes pertain to access scenario such as constraints).
Although access limit calculation or computation based on limiting factors (para 0031, 0050, 0076, 0079, 0085-0087 - influence of the second pattern influencing the action by using the data set and the second pattern, i.e. constraint type influencing or limiting the action based on restrictions at any level as guided by the role or constraint) is well-known feature in the art, Ferrans does not appear to explicitly disclose, however Kliger discloses estimating at least one of an order or magnitude of the degree of influence of the second pattern influencing the action by using the data set and the second pattern (para 0030, 0037, 0069-0070, 0075 - level or threshold indicative of degree of effect of attributes on the access action). Based on Ferrans in view of Kliger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize teachings of Kliger in the system of Ferrans, in order to utilize limits or degree indicative of likelihood or estimation of access limits that affect the access operation, thereby improving access control features in a system to improve system access security.
For claim 8, the claim limitations are similar to those of claim 1, except claim 8 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium having a program stored therein (Ferrans - Fig. 1, 11; para 0024, 0102-0103), the program causing a computer to execute the method performed by the analysis apparatus of claim 1. Therefore claim 8 is rejected according to claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH JHAVERI whose telephone number is (571)270-7584. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM to 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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on (571)272-6798. 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.
/JAYESH M JHAVERI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433