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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 and 13, line 2 “as well” is ambiguous and should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,110 and 11,451,520. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant applicant is anticipated by the Patent. The Patents discloses each and every limitation of the instant application. Therefore, the claims 1-20 of the instant application is anticipated by claims 1-20 of both the 12,058,110 and 11,451,520 Patent.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a 35 patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “providing access…according to first instructions”, “using the first instructions to manage first communications…” and “using second instructions to manage second communications…”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the using of instructions to manage communications is an abstract idea covering essentially all forms of electronic communications, which falls under at least the general grouping of “mathematical concepts” or even “mental processes” as the claims merely state using instructions without further details of the actual instructions being claimed. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely incorporate a generic “computing system” for performing the method. Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Chanak et al. (US Pub No 2018/0270201)
Chanak teaches:
1. A method, comprising:
a computing system providing access to components of the computing system according to first instructions (e.g., providing access via the Security Cloud 602, teaching the computing system, to the Enterprise File Shares and Apps, teaching the components connected to the computing system, @ ¶ 0057 & Fig. 8 #712 and using instructions “per the central authority for policy configuration” ¶ 0056 and per security policy @ Fig. 8 #710 & ¶ 0032 & 0046);
the computing system using the first instructions to manage first communications between the components of the computing system (e.g., the “policy configuration” ¶ 0056 and “lightweight connectors” providing instructions to connect to the file shares and applications components ¶ 0056-0057 & 0059); and
the computing system using second instructions to manage second communications between the computing system and a client computing device (e.g., and further instructions for connecting client devices #702 to the computing system #602 @ Fig. 8 & ¶ 0056-0057 using applications 704 provision both secure remote access and accessibility to the security cloud 602 ¶ 0058).
Chanak further teaches claim:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the managing of the first communications comprises securing the first communications (e.g., the lightweight connectors 712 sit in front of the applications and connect only to the security cloud 602 @ Fig. 8 #602 & 710 & ¶ 0059 and virtual private access secures the connections ¶ 0063 & 0066).
Chanak further teaches claim:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the managing of the second communications comprises securing the second communications (e.g., securing the connections between the user and the security cloud ¶ 0065-0066).
Chanak further teaches claim:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the managing of the second communications comprises securing the second communications (e.g., securing the connections between the user and the security cloud ¶ 0065-0066).
Chanak further teaches claim:
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising the computing system using the second instructions to manage first communications as well (e.g., connecting per policy ¶ 0054 & 0059-0063 & Fig. 8 #710).
Chanak further teaches claim:
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the managing of the second communications comprises securing the second communications (e.g., securing the connections between the user and the security cloud ¶ 0065-0066 & Fig. 8 #710).
Chanak further teaches claim:
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the managing of the first communications comprises securing the first communications (e.g., the lightweight connectors 712 sit in front of the applications and connect only to the security cloud 602 @ Fig. 8 & ¶ 0059 and virtual private access secures the connections ¶ 0063 & 0066).
Chanak further teaches claim:
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the client computing device is part of a group of client computing devices that the computing system interacts with exclusively (e.g., virtual private access provide access to specific applications per policy ¶ 0029-0030 and can access only specific applications ¶ 0046 & 0070).
Claims 9-16 recites substantially similar limitations as claims 1-8, but instead of reciting a “first instructions”, claim 9 recites “first authentication method”, which Chanak teaches authentication methods for virtual private access at ¶ 0072 and using authentication server ¶ 0075 and further authentication methods ¶ 0091-0095. Accordingly, claims 9-16 are rejected for similar reasoning per claims 1-8.
Claims 17-20 recites substantially similar limitations as claims 1-4, but for recitation in the form of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”. Accordingly, claims 17-20 are rejected for similar reasoning per claims 1-4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly, Patrick et al. (US Pub No 2016/0261564) discloses relevant methods for authenticating a client to a cloud system through authentication for SaaS applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU LE whose telephone number is (571)270-7217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, LINGLAN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-5440. 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.
/CHAU LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408