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
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed June 11 2026 for application serial no. 18/751,555.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15-18, and 20 are currently pending. Claims 3, 14, and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1, 12, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1, 12, and 17 are independent claims. Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15-18, and 20 have been examined. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 6/11/2026, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues as follows: With regard to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 12-13 and 16-18 under §103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Cristofi in view of Rosow, Applicant notes that a proper prima facie case of obviousness requires that the cited references, when combined, must "teach or suggest all the claim limitations," and that there be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the references or to modify the reference teachings. See MPEP §706.020).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Rosow discloses in paragraph 0002 one would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of a real time support tool.
Applicant argues as follows: Applicant respectfully traverses the §103 rejection of claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 12-13 and 16-18 over Cristofi in view of Rosow on the ground that Cristofi in view of Rosow fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 12-13 and 16-18 as originally presented, and on the further ground that there is no suggestion or motivation to modify the collective teachings of Cristofi and Rosow in a manner that would reach these particular recitations. For example, Applicant submits that the collective teachings of Cristofi and Rosow fail to teach or suggest the limitations of determining one or more account-related actions to be executed, in connection with at least a portion of the one or more account-related assets, in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event pertaining to the at least one user, arranged as recited in the independent claims. More particularly, independent claims 1, 12 and 17 have been amended to clarify that determining one or more account-related actions to be executed, in connection with at least a portion of the one or more account-related assets, in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event pertaining to the at least one user, comprises determining one or more account-related asset access modifications to be made with respect to the at least one user as a result of the occurrence of the at least one designated event, and determining authentication information of the at least one user for utilization in conjunction with making the one or more account-related asset access modifications.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz read on the independent claims. Regarding claim 1, Cristofi discloses, paragraphs 1017 and 0268, a computer-implemented method comprising: detecting an occurrence of at least one event pertaining to at least one user by processing at least a first set of one or more data structures comprising user-related data by disclosing data structures, events, occurrence; paragraph 0268, data records, occurrence of event; paragraphs 1023 and 0889, identifying one or more account-related assets associated with the at least one user by processing at least a second set of one or more data structures comprising asset-related data by disclosing identifying the asset; paragraph 0889, other set of data; paragraphs 1044 and 0919, determining one or more account-related actions to be executed, in connection with at least a portion of the one or more account-related assets, in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one event pertaining to the at least one user by disclosing determine whether the action executed; file may be manually created or automatically generated with certain predetermined field extraction rules; paragraph 0242, wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining authentication information of the at least one user for utilization in conjunction with making the one or more account-related asset access modifications by disclosing authenticate user by providing credentials, authenticating user can determine permission s of the users such as datasets that the user can access; paragraph 0614, automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions by disclosing automatically execute; paragraph 0578, performing one or more additional automated actions related to the one or more determined account-related actions and based at least in part on the at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions automatically executed by disclosing once manual/ automated change can lead to another automated change; paragraph 1089, wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory by disclosing manually executed. Rosow discloses, paragraph 0102, designated event by disclosing user, access, update, selected scheduled event. Kantrowitz discloses, paragraph 0061, wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining one or more account-related asset access modifications to be made with respect to the at least one user as a result of the occurrence of the at least one designated event by disclosing account, asset, asset allocation changes over time, event.
Applicant argues as follows: Moreover, Applicant respectfully notes that MPEP §2143.03 requires that "[a]ll words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). Consequently, considering all words in the independent claims (particularly, the limitations noted above), Applicant asserts that the independent claims cannot properly be rendered unpatentable in light of the cited references.
Examiner has examined the currently pending claims having considered all words in the claims in light of the specification and has sought to avoid reading the specification into the claims.
Applicant argues as follows: Applicant points, for example, to page 17, lines 18-22 of the specification, which states as follows regarding non-limiting illustrative embodiments of the claimed arrangements: In at least one embodiment, determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event includes determining one or more account-related asset access modifications to be made with respect to the at least one user as a result of the occurrence of the at least one designated event. By way of further support for the amendments, Applicant points, for example, to page 7, lines 1-10 of the specification, which states as follows regarding non-limiting illustrative embodiments of the claimed arrangements: As such, and as detailed herein, at least one embodiment includes enabling and/or implementing intelligent device interactions which can reciprocate changes of authentication information (e.g., passwords) and user account access via an automated workflow. Such an automated workflow can include providing and/or initiating actionable input(s) at different moments and/or instances during a notice period of a particular user to enable a seamless exit and/or deactivation process. Further, as also described herein, in contrast to disadvantageous conventional techniques, one or more embodiments include avoiding and/or precluding information mismatch and communication gaps with respect to determining user account accesses and/or assets, and determining the process(es) needed to complete appropriate account transfers and/or deactivations.
Examiner respectfully submits that the claims have been properly rejected by the cited references. The combination of Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz read on the independent claims. Regarding claim 1, Cristofi discloses, paragraphs 1017 and 0268, a computer-implemented method comprising: detecting an occurrence of at least one event pertaining to at least one user by processing at least a first set of one or more data structures comprising user-related data by disclosing data structures, events, occurrence; paragraph 0268, data records, occurrence of event; paragraphs 1023 and 0889, identifying one or more account-related assets associated with the at least one user by processing at least a second set of one or more data structures comprising asset-related data by disclosing identifying the asset; paragraph 0889, other set of data; paragraphs 1044 and 0919, determining one or more account-related actions to be executed, in connection with at least a portion of the one or more account-related assets, in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one event pertaining to the at least one user by disclosing determine whether the action executed; file may be manually created or automatically generated with certain predetermined field extraction rules; paragraph 0242, wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining authentication information of the at least one user for utilization in conjunction with making the one or more account-related asset access modifications by disclosing authenticate user by providing credentials, authenticating user can determine permission s of the users such as datasets that the user can access; paragraph 0614, automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions by disclosing automatically execute; paragraph 0578, performing one or more additional automated actions related to the one or more determined account-related actions and based at least in part on the at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions automatically executed by disclosing once manual/ automated change can lead to another automated change; paragraph 1089, wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory by disclosing manually executed. Rosow discloses, paragraph 0102, designated event by disclosing user, access, update, selected scheduled event. Kantrowitz discloses, paragraph 0061, wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining one or more account-related asset access modifications to be made with respect to the at least one user as a result of the occurrence of the at least one designated event by disclosing account, asset, asset allocation changes over time, event.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended and details in the specification be incorporated to distinguish the claimed invention over prior art of record. Should the Applicant desire an interview to further clarify the claim interpretation/rejections, please contact the Examiner at (571) 270 5002 to schedule an interview.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cristofi (US20210117251), filed October 19, 2019, in view of Rosow (US20030074222), filed September 9, 2002, and Kantrowitz (US20190259102), filed February 18, 2019.
Regarding claim 1, Cristofi discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting an occurrence of at least one event pertaining to at least one user by processing at least a first set of one or more data structures comprising user-related data (Cristofi, paragraph 1017, data structures, events, occurrence; paragraph 0268, data records, occurrence of event);
identifying one or more account-related assets associated with the at least one user by processing at least a second set of one or more data structures comprising asset-related data (Cristofi, paragraph 1023, identifying the asset; paragraph 0889, other set of data);
determining one or more account-related actions to be executed, in connection with at least a portion of the one or more account-related assets, in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one event pertaining to the at least one user (Cristofi, paragraph 1044, determine whether the action executed; paragraph 0919, file may be manually created or automatically generated with certain predetermined field extraction rules);
wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining authentication information of the at least one user for utilization in conjunction with making the one or more account-related asset access modifications (Cristofi, paragraph 0242, authenticate user by providing credentials, authenticating user can determine permission s of the users such as datasets that the user can access);
automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions (Cristofi, paragraph 0614, automatically execute);
performing one or more additional automated actions related to the one or more determined account-related actions and based at least in part on the at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions automatically executed (Cristofi, paragraph 0578, once manual/ automated change can lead to another automated change); wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory. (Cristofi, paragraph 1089, manually executed)
Cristofi discloses event but does not explicitly disclose designated event.
However, in an analogous art, Rosow discloses designated event (Rosow, paragraph 0102, user, access, update, selected scheduled event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rosow with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi to include designated event. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of a real time support tool (Rosow: paragraph 0002).
Cristofi and Rosow disclose designated event, but do not explicitly disclose wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining one or more account-related asset access modifications to be made with respect to the at least one user as a result of the occurrence of the at least one designated event.
However, in an analogous art, Kantrowitz discloses wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining one or more account-related asset access modifications to be made with respect to the at least one user as a result of the occurrence of the at least one designated event (Kantrowitz, paragraph 0061, account, asset, asset allocation changes over time, event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kantrowitz with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi and Rosow to include wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining one or more account-related asset access modifications to be made with respect to the at least one user as a result of the occurrence of the at least one designated event. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of maximizing return while simultaneously minimizing risk associated with an investment event (Kantrowitz: paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 2, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose wherein identifying one or more account-related assets associated with the at least one user comprises implementing at least one application programming interface (API) in connection with processing at least a second set of one or more data structures, wherein implementing the at least one API comprises using the at least one API to gather data, from the at least a second set of one or more data structures, pertaining to one or more of hardware assets associated with the at least one user, software assets associated with the at least one user, and access privileges attributed to the at least one user (Cristofi, paragraph 0238, API to interact with other components of the data intake system; paragraph 1008, other tenant data, other data, API).
Regarding claim 5, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose wherein detecting an occurrence of at least one designated event comprises detecting an occurrence of at least one event indicating a change in status of the at least one user with respect to access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets (Cristofi, paragraph 1026, status, updated; paragraph 1040, accounts, events).
Regarding claim 7, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose wherein automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions comprises automatically deactivating access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets for the at least one user (Cristofi, paragraph 0204, deactivated).
Regarding claim 9, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose wherein performing one or more additional automated actions comprises generating and outputting, to one or more users, instructions to execute at least one of the one or more determined account-related actions separate from the at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions automatically executed (Cristofi, paragraph 1089, executed automatically, manually executed).
Regarding claim 12, Cristofi discloses a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device causes the at least one processing device (Cristofi, paragraph 0166, memories, processors);
to detect an occurrence of at least one designated event pertaining to at least one user by processing at least a first set of one or more data structures comprising user-related data (Cristofi, paragraph 1017, data structures, events, occurrence; paragraph 0268, data records, occurrence of event);
to identify one or more account-related assets associated with the at least one user by processing at least a second set of one or more data structures comprising asset-related data (Cristofi, paragraph 1023, identifying the asset; paragraph 0889, other set of data);
to determine one or more account-related actions to be executed, in connection with at least a portion of the one or more account-related assets, in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event pertaining to the at least one user (Cristofi, paragraph 1044, determine whether the action executed; paragraph 0919, file may be manually created or automatically generated with certain predetermined field extraction rules);
wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining authentication information of the at least one user for utilization in conjunction with making the one or more account-related asset access modifications (Cristofi, paragraph 0242, authenticate user by providing credentials, authenticating user can determine permission s of the users such as datasets that the user can access);
to automatically execute at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions (Cristofi, paragraph 0614, automatically execute);
to perform one or more additional automated actions related to the one or more determined account-related actions and based at least in part on the at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions automatically executed (Cristofi, paragraph 0578, once manual/ automated change can lead to another automated change, paragraph 1089, manually executed).
Cristofi discloses event but does not explicitly disclose designated event.
However, in an analogous art, Rosow discloses designated event (Rosow, paragraph 0102, user, access, update, selected scheduled event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rosow with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi to include designated event. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of a real time support tool (Rosow: paragraph 0002).
Cristofi and Rosow disclose designated event, but do not explicitly disclose wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining one or more account-related asset access modifications to be made with respect to the at least one user as a result of the occurrence of the at least one designated event.
However, in an analogous art, Kantrowitz discloses wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining one or more account-related asset access modifications to be made with respect to the at least one user as a result of the occurrence of the at least one designated event (Kantrowitz, paragraph 0061, account, asset, asset allocation changes over time, event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kantrowitz with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi and Rosow to include wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining one or more account-related asset access modifications to be made with respect to the at least one user as a result of the occurrence of the at least one designated event. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of maximizing return while simultaneously minimizing risk associated with an investment event (Kantrowitz: paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 13, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the non-transitory processor-readable storage medium of claim 12. Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose wherein identifying one or more account-related assets associated with the at least one user comprises implementing at least one API in connection with processing at least a second set of one or more data structures, wherein implementing the at least one API comprises using the at least one API to gather data, from the at least a second set of one or more data structures, pertaining to one or more of hardware assets associated with the at least one user, software assets associated with the at least one user, and access privileges attributed to the at least one user (Cristofi, paragraph 0238, API to interact with other components of the data intake system; paragraph 1008, other tenant data, other data, API).
Regarding claim 16, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the non-transitory processor-readable storage medium of claim 12. Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose wherein detecting an occurrence of at least one designated event comprises detecting an occurrence of at least one event indicating a change in status of the at least one user with respect to access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets (Cristofi, paragraph 1026, status, updated; paragraph 1040, accounts, events).
Regarding claim 17, Cristofi disclose an apparatus comprising:
at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory;
the at least one processing device being configured (Cristofi, paragraph 0166, memories, processors);
to detect an occurrence of at least one designated event pertaining to at least one user by processing at least a first set of one or more data structures comprising user-related data (Cristofi, paragraph 1017, data structures, events, occurrence; paragraph 0268, data records, occurrence of event);
to identify one or more account-related assets associated with the at least one user by processing at least a second set of one or more data structures comprising asset-related data (Cristofi, paragraph 1023, identifying the asset; paragraph 0889, other set of data);
to determine one or more account-related actions to be executed, in connection with at least a portion of the one or more account-related assets, in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event pertaining to the at least one user (Cristofi, paragraph 1044, determine whether the action executed; paragraph 0919, file may be manually created or automatically generated with certain predetermined field extraction rules);
wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining authentication information of the at least one user for utilization in conjunction with making the one or more account-related asset access modifications (Cristofi, paragraph 0242, authenticate user by providing credentials, authenticating user can determine permission s of the users such as datasets that the user can access);
to automatically execute at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions (Cristofi, paragraph 0614, automatically execute);
to perform one or more additional automated actions related to the one or more determined account-related actions and based at least in part on the at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions automatically executed (Cristofi, paragraph 0578, once manual/ automated change can lead to another automated change, paragraph 1089, manually executed).
Cristofi discloses event but does not explicitly disclose designated event.
However, in an analogous art, Rosow discloses designated event (Rosow, paragraph 0102, user, access, update, selected scheduled event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rosow with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi to include designated event. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of a real time support tool (Rosow: paragraph 0002).
Cristofi and Rosow disclose designated event, but do not explicitly disclose wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining one or more account-related asset access modifications to be made with respect to the at least one user as a result of the occurrence of the at least one designated event.
However, in an analogous art, Kantrowitz discloses wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining one or more account-related asset access modifications to be made with respect to the at least one user as a result of the occurrence of the at least one designated event (Kantrowitz, paragraph 0061, account, asset, asset allocation changes over time, event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kantrowitz with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi and Rosow to include wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises determining one or more account-related asset access modifications to be made with respect to the at least one user as a result of the occurrence of the at least one designated event. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of maximizing return while simultaneously minimizing risk associated with an investment event (Kantrowitz: paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 18, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the apparatus of claim 17. Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose wherein identifying one or more account-related assets associated with the at least one user comprises implementing at least one API in connection with processing at least a second set of one or more data structures, wherein implementing the at least one API comprises using the at least one API to gather data, from the at least a second set of one or more data structures, pertaining to one or more of hardware assets associated with the at least one user, software assets associated with the at least one user, and access privileges attributed to the at least one user. (Cristofi, paragraph 0238, API to interact with other components of the data intake system; paragraph 1008, other tenant data, other data, API)
Claims 4, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cristofi (US20210117251), filed October 19, 2019, in view of Rosow (US20030074222), filed September 9, 2002, and Kantrowitz (US20190259102), filed February 18, 2019, and further in view of Miura (US20030002580), filed August 8, 2002.
Regarding claim 4, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz do not explicitly disclose wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which can be executed automatically and identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which require user input.
However, in an analogous art, Miura discloses wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which can be executed automatically and identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which require user input (Miura, paragraph 0104, select automatic execution; select manual execution).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Miura with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz to include wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which can be executed automatically and identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which require user input. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of efficiently manage image data (Miura: paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 15, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the non-transitory processor-readable storage medium of claim 12.
Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz do not explicitly disclose wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which can be executed automatically and identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which require user input.
However, in an analogous art, Miura discloses wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which can be executed automatically and identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which require user input (Miura, paragraph 0104, select automatic execution; select manual execution).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Miura with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz to include wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which can be executed automatically and identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which require user input. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of efficiently manage image data (Miura: paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 20, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the apparatus of claim 17.
Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz do not explicitly disclose wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which can be executed automatically and identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which require user
However, in an analogous art, Miura discloses wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which can be executed automatically and identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which require user input (Miura, paragraph 0104, select automatic execution; select manual execution).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Miura with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz to include wherein determining one or more account-related actions to be executed in response to detecting the occurrence of the at least one designated event comprises identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which can be executed automatically and identifying each of the one or more account-related actions which require user input. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of efficiently manage image data (Miura: paragraph 0009).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cristofi (US20210117251), filed October 19, 2019, in view of Rosow (US20030074222), filed September 9, 2002, and Kantrowitz (US20190259102), filed February 18, 2019, and further in view of Lewis (US7865959), filed February 27., 2002.
Regarding claim 6, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 5.
Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz do not explicitly disclose wherein detecting an occurrence of at least one event indicating a change in status of the at least one user with respect to access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets comprises detecting an indication of a departure of the at least one user from at least one corresponding enterprise by processing enterprise management data within the at least a first set of one or more data structures.
However, in an analogous art, Lewis discloses wherein detecting an occurrence of at least one event indicating a change in status of the at least one user with respect to access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets comprises detecting an indication of a departure of the at least one user from at least one corresponding enterprise by processing enterprise management data within the at least a first set of one or more data structures (Lewis, col. 1, lines 38-46, leaves a company, changes jobs, account status should be changed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lewis with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz to include wherein detecting an occurrence of at least one event indicating a change in status of the at least one user with respect to access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets comprises detecting an indication of a departure of the at least one user from at least one corresponding enterprise by processing enterprise management data within the at least a first set of one or more data structures. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of managing access information in a distributed computing environment (Lewis: col. 1, lines 21-37).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cristofi (US20210117251), filed October 19, 2019, in view of Rosow (US20030074222), filed September 9, 2002, and Kantrowitz (US20190259102), filed February 18, 2019, and further in view of Coronel (US20140283129), filed January 13, 2014.
Regarding claim 8, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz do not explicitly disclose wherein automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions comprises automatically transferring access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets from the at least one user to one or more additional users.
However, in an analogous art, Coronel discloses wherein automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions comprises automatically transferring access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets from the at least one user to one or more additional users (Coronel, paragraph 0018, transfer access rights from a first user account to a second user account).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Coronel with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz to include wherein automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions comprises automatically transferring access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets from the at least one user to one or more additional users. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of transferring access rights (Coronel: paragraph 0002).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cristofi (US20210117251), filed October 19, 2019, in view of Rosow (US20030074222), filed September 9, 2002, and Kantrowitz (US20190259102), filed February 18, 2019, and further in view of Kim (US20220216947), PCT filed July 6, 2020.
Regarding claim 10, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 9.
Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz do not explicitly disclose wherein performing one or more additional automated actions comprises processing data, contained within at least a third set of one or more data structures, related to completion status of the at least one of the one or more determined account-related actions.
However, in an analogous art, Kim discloses wherein performing one or more additional automated actions comprises processing data, contained within at least a third set of one or more data structures, related to completion status of the at least one of the one or more determined account-related actions (Kim, paragraph 0029, processor transmits third data after completion of transmission of second data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Coronel with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz to include wherein automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions comprises automatically transferring access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets from the at least one user to one or more additional users. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of quickly forming a new link requiring a high priority and a tight delay requirement (Kim paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 11, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kim disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising: generating and outputting, to the one or more users and in accordance with one or more temporal parameters, one or more reminders pertaining to the instructions to execute the at least one of the one or more determined account-related actions based at least in part on the processing of the data related to completion status of the at least one of the one or more determined account-related actions (Kim, paragraph 0029, processor transmits third data after completion of transmission of second data).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cristofi (US20210117251), filed October 19, 2019, in view of Rosow (US20030074222), filed September 9, 2002, and Kantrowitz (US20190259102), filed February 18, 2019, and further in view of Blackshear (US20200394648), filed June 15 2019 .
Regarding claim 21, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the apparatus of claim 17,
Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz do not explicitly disclose wherein detecting an occurrence of at least one designated event comprises detecting an occurrence of at least one event indicating a change in status of the at least one user with respect to access to at least one of the one or more account- related assets.
However, in an analogous art, Blackshear discloses wherein detecting an occurrence of at least one designated event comprises detecting an occurrence of at least one event indicating a change in status of the at least one user with respect to access to at least one of the one or more account- related assets (Blackshear, paragraph 0283, data structure, paragraph 0286, update the eviction date to extend the active status of the user account, assets, user account).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Blackshear with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz to include wherein detecting an occurrence of at least one designated event comprises detecting an occurrence of at least one event indicating a change in status of the at least one user with respect to access to at least one of the one or more account- related assets. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of implementing a scalable, secure, efficient, and adaptable digital ledger transaction network (Blackshear, abstract).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cristofi (US20210117251), filed October 19, 2019, in view of Rosow (US20030074222), filed September 9, 2002, and Kantrowitz (US20190259102), filed February 18, 2019, and further in view of Van Zoest (US20020062252), filed December 12, 2001.
Regarding claim 22, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz disclose the apparatus of claim 17.
Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz do not explicitly disclose wherein automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions comprises automatically deactivating access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets for the at least one user.
However, in an analogous art, Van Zoest discloses wherein automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions comprises automatically deactivating access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets for the at least one user (Van Zoest, paragraph 0114, automatically deactivate, account, shutdown access, suspend the account).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Van Zoest with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz to include wherein automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions comprises automatically deactivating access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets for the at least one user. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of providing access to electronic works over a network (Van Zoest, abstract).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cristofi (US20210117251), filed October 19, 2019, in view of Rosow (US20030074222), filed September 9, 2002, and Kantrowitz (US20190259102), filed February 18, 2019, and further in view of Coronel (US20140310175), filed April 14, 2024.
Regarding claim 23, Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz discloses the apparatus of claim 17.
Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz do not explicitly disclose wherein automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions comprises automatically transferring access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets from the at least one user to one or more additional users.
However, in an analogous art, Coronel discloses wherein automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions comprises automatically transferring access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets from the at least one user to one or more additional users (Coronel, paragraph 0032, transfer access rights from the account of a first user to the account of second user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Coronel with the computer-implemented method / non-transitory processor-readable storage medium/ apparatus of Cristofi, Rosow, and Kantrowitz to include wherein automatically executing at least a portion of the one or more determined account-related actions comprises automatically transferring access to at least one of the one or more account-related assets from the at least one user to one or more additional users. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of exchanging access rights to digital privileges without duplicating or transferring the digital privilege (Coronel: paragraph 0002).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WALTER J MALINOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5368. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6:30 MTWH.
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, LUU PHAM can be reached at 5712705002. 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.
/W.J.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights