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 6/25/2026 for application 18/769,690.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent claims. Claims 1, 8, 9, 11-15, and 17-19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 6/25/2026, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts as follows: Further, the claim does not recite any method of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Finally, the claim does not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. Thus, the claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “determining whether to allow access... depending on whether a timing of the access is within an access-based time restriction…” “generating a schedule for the configuration access to the control path.” Broadly interpreted, the aforementioned steps are directed to mental processes as said steps could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that could be considered that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claim recites the operations “accessing a data store,” “‘determining that an entry … exists in the data store’ and ‘reading the entry’ However, said operations are recited at a high level of generality in gathering/processing/storing information, which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant asserts as follows: Likewise, the subject claims recite elements involving accessing a data store comprising access data, determining a specified time window based on the access data, and generating a schedule for access to a control path, which cannot be practically applied or performed as a mental process in the human mind, and also do not recite any method of organizing human activity. It follows that for at least these reasons, claim 1, and the claims depending therefrom, are patent eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It’s noted that the claims recite additional limitation/elements (i.e., system, processor, memory, data store, application programming interface (API), etc.,). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant asserts as follows: Furthermore, even if the claims could be considered to be directed to a judicial exception, they are directed to a practical application that overcomes the problem of complicated configuration access being a security risk, in particular by providing control using time-based configuration access control restrictions, as discussed throughout the specification, and thus would be eligible under part 2A, Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo two-step framework. … claims 1-8 are patent eligible, are not directed to a judicial exception, and even if directed to a judicial exception, provide a practical application amounting to significantly more than simply organizing and comparing data, and significantly more than mere human activity. Accordingly, withdrawal of the patentability rejections of claims 1-8 is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not include additional elements/limitations/embodiments that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant asserts as follows: II. Rejection of Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. & 103 Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Gold (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0121889, filed July 26, 2018) in view of Thomas (US Patent Publication No. 2004/0039827, filed April 8, 2003). Gold and Thomas, either separately or in combination fail to teach and/or suggest at least the feature of "an access-based time window defining allowable access by the API to the control path. “Gold fails to teach and/or suggest providing a "time window," e.g., a range of time, and also is not providing a time window with which any API is enabled to have access (e.g., allowable access by the API to the control path).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gold discloses, paragraph 0292, time restriction window by disclosing periodicity, window of time after which no further updates need to be generated.
Applicant asserts as follows: Thomas may at most disclose merely establishing a communication protocol session for an API, without more. Thomas fails to teach and/or suggest any information regarding time-based access, e.g., at a certain time, or for a certain time length overall or time range scheduled. In view of the foregoing, Gold and/or Thomas, either separately or in combination, fail to teach and/or suggest each and every feature of independent claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gold discloses, paragraph 0292, time restriction window by disclosing periodicity, window of time after which no further updates need to be generated. Thomas discloses, paragraphs 0249 and 0281, determining whether to allow an access of the user entity, by the API, to the control path, depending on whether a timing of the access is within an access-based time restriction window comprised by the entry by disclosing administrator, secure some or all access into enterprise resources; establishing a session.
Applicant asserts as follows: Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 9 and thus are patentable over at least Gold and/or Thomas for at least the reasons provided above relative to claim 1, in view of similarity to claim 9. The addition of Vishnyakov does not make up for the deficiencies of Thomas and/or Gold. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections of claims 11 and 12 is respectfully requested. Further, at least claim 11 is patentable over the references cited for at least additional reasons. For example, claim 11 recites at least the feature of: "employing one access-based time restriction window, of the first access-based time restriction window or the second access-based time restriction window, having a most recent date of entry to the data store. “Gold, Thomas, and/or Novak fail to teach and/or suggest at least this feature. Novak fails to teach and/or suggest any comparison of plural restrictions and/or selection of one based on any criteria. Novak also fails to teach and/or suggest any selection criteria that would be considered as "a most recent date of entry to the data store," by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Novak discloses, paragraph 0043 and 0092, resolving an instance of conflict between the access-based time restriction window, being a first access-based time restriction window, and a second access-based time restriction window, also associated with the user entity and the API, by employing one access-based time restriction window of the first access-based time restriction or the second access-based time restriction window, having a most recent date of entry to the data store by disclosing management entity, manages, security; conflict, conflict resolution, time restriction.
Applicant asserts as follows: In addition, at least claim 12 is patentable over the references cited for at least additional reasons. For example, claim 12 recites at least the feature of: "employing one access-based time restriction window of the first access-based time restriction window or the second access-based time restriction window, having data defining a greater administrator entity security level associated therewith." Novak fails to teach and/or suggest any comparison of plural restrictions and/or selection of one based on any criteria. Novak also fails to teach and/or suggest any selection criteria that would be considered as "a greater administrator entity security level associated therewith," by one having ordinary skill in the art. It follows that Novak fails to teach and/or suggest each and every feature of claim 12. Thus claim 12 is patentable over the references cited for these additional reasons.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Novak discloses, paragraph 0043 and 0092, further comprising: resolving an instance of conflict between the access-based time restriction window, being a first access-based time restriction window, and a second access-based time restriction window, also associated with the user entity and the API, by employing one access-based time restriction window of the first access-based time restriction window or the second access-based time restriction window, having data defining a greater administrator entity security level associated therewith by disclosing management entity, manages, security; conflict, conflict resolution, time restriction.
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) 272-5368 to schedule an interview.
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 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as being directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “determining whether to allow access... depending on whether a timing of the access is within an access-based time restriction…” “generating a schedule for the configuration access to the control path.” Broadly interpreted, the aforementioned steps are directed to mental processes as said steps could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that could be considered that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claim recites the operations “accessing a data store,” “‘determining that an entry … exists in the data store’ and ‘reading the entry’ However, said operations are recited at a high level of generality in gathering/processing/storing information, which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
It’s also noted that the claims recite additional limitation/elements (i.e., system, processor, memory, data store, application programming interface (API), etc.,). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements/limitations/embodiments that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-8, claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims recite an abstract idea and the claims do not positively recite any other operations that could be considered as the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. It’s noted that claim 2 recites the limitations: “generating the schedule….” Claim 3, recites “determining the specified time windows”; claim 5 recites “obtaining a portion of the specified time”, “obtaining a second portion of the specified time”, and “obtaining data defining different time window provision authorities”’ claim 7 recites “determining whether the specified time window applies”, and claim 8 recites “storing the schedule…” Said steps are either directed to mental processes and/or in a form of insignificant extra-solution activities; The aforementioned steps are not sufficient to consider that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-3, 8-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold,(US20190121889), filed July 26, 2018 in view of Thomas (US20040039827), filed April 8, 2003.
Regarding claim 1, Gold discloses a system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: (Gold, paragraph 0384, computer readable storage medium, processor, computer);
accessing a data store comprising access data bounding configuration access by plural user entities using an application programming interface (API) for the configuration access to a control path of a storage system (Gold, paragraph 0343, the GPU servers may be configured, via an API, to receive scheduling instructions from the unified management plane to implement scheduling instructions; paragraph 0105, entities; paragraph 0107, users) ;
generating a schedule for the configuration access to the control path (Gold, paragraph 0343, the unified management plane configured to work with a scheduler on storage systems);
wherein the schedule comprises an access-based time window defining allowable access by the API to the control path (Gold, paragraph 0292, window of time, schedule at which specific events are to be performed, paragraph 0317, storage systems may be configured via an API, management plane).
Gold discloses generating a schedule for the configuration access to the control path, but does not explicitly disclose determining a specified time window relative to the API employed for the configuration access to the control path of the storage system; and based on the specified time window, generating a schedule for the configuration access to the control path.
However, in an analogous art, Thomas discloses determining a specified time window relative to the API employed for the configuration access to the control path of the storage system; and based on the specified time window (Thomas, paragraph 0249, administrator, secure some or all access into enterprise resources; paragraph 0281, establishing a session, API);
based on the specified time window, generating a schedule for the configuration access to the control path (Thomas, paragraph 0249, administrator, secure some or all access into enterprise resources; paragraph 0281, establishing a session).
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 Thomas with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold to include determining a specified time window relative to the API employed for the configuration access to the control path of the storage system; and based on the specified time window, generating a schedule for the configuration access to the control path to provide users with the benefits of remote access to resources maintained on private networks (Thomas: paragraphs 0008, 0009).
Regarding claim 2, Gold and Thomas disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: generating the schedule to comprise both the access-based time window and a user entity corresponding to the access-based time window (Thomas, paragraph 0249, administrator, secure some or all access into enterprise resources; paragraph 0281, establishing a session).
Regarding claim 3, Gold and Thomas disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining specified time windows, comprising the specified time window, relative to APIs, comprising the API,(Thomas, paragraph 0249, administrator, secure some or all access into enterprise resources; paragraph 0281, establishing a session), wherein the generating of the schedule comprises generating the schedule for the configuration access to the control path further based on the specified time windows, and (Gold, paragraph 0128, authentication services, user, paragraph 0292, window of time, schedule at which specific events are to be performed, paragraph 0317, storage systems may be configured via an API, management plane) (Thomas, paragraph 0249, administrator, secure some or all access into enterprise resources; paragraph 0281, establishing a session), wherein the schedule comprises access-based time windows defining allowable access, comprising the allowable access, of the APIs to the control path (Gold, paragraph 0128, authentication services, user, paragraph 0292, window of time, schedule at which specific events are to be performed, paragraph 0317, storage systems may be configured via an API, management plane) (Thomas, paragraph 0249, administrator, secure some or all access into enterprise resources; paragraph 0281, establishing a session).
Regarding claim 8, Gold and Thomas disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: storing the schedule via the data store accessible to an application, associated with the storage system, that regulates access to the API for a user entity upon successful user authentication for the user entity relative to the storage system (Gold, paragraph 0128, authentication services, user, paragraph 0292, window of time, schedule at which specific events are to be performed, paragraph 0317, storage systems may be configured via an API, management plane) (Thomas, paragraph 0249, administrator, secure some or all access into enterprise resources; paragraph 0281, establishing a session).
Regarding claim 9, Gold and Thomas disclose a method, comprising:
accessing, by a system comprising at least one processor, a data store comprising access data bounding configuration access by plural user entities using plural application programming interfaces (APIs) for the configuration access to a control path of a storage system (Gold, paragraph 0124, API, modules, module addresses part of a transaction, permissions may use ACL, ACL specifies users to be granted access; paragraph 0235, one or more APIs);
determining that an entry associated with an API, of the plural APIs, and a user entity, of the plural user entities, exists in the data store; (Gold, paragraph 0124, API, modules, module addresses part of a transaction, permissions may use ACL, ACL specifies users to be granted access; paragraph 0235, one or more APIs);
reading the entry; and (Gold, paragraph 0124, API, modules, module addresses part of a transaction, permissions may use ACL, ACL specifies users to be granted access);
determining whether to allow an access of the user entity, by the API, to the control path (Gold, paragraph 0128, authentication services, user, paragraph 0292, window of time, schedule at which specific events are to be performed, paragraph 0317, storage systems may be configured via an API, management plane);
time restriction window (Gold, paragraph 0292, periodicity, window of time after which no further updates need to be generated).
Gold discloses determining whether to allow an access of the user entity, by the API, to the control path, but does not explicitly disclose determining whether to allow an access of the user entity, by the API, to the control path, depending on whether a timing of the access is within an access-based time restriction window comprised by the entry.
However, in an analogous art, Thomas discloses determining whether to allow an access of the user entity, by the API, to the control path, depending on whether a timing of the access is within an access-based time restriction window comprised by the entry (Thomas, paragraph 0249, administrator, secure some or all access into enterprise resources; paragraph 0281, establishing a session).
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 Thomas with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold to include determining whether to allow an access of the user entity, by the API, to the control path, depending on whether a timing of the access is within an access-based time restriction window comprised by the entry to provide users with the benefits of remote access to resources maintained on private networks (Thomas: paragraphs 0008, 0009).
Regarding claim 10, Gold and Thomas disclose the method of claim 9, wherein the accessing of the data store is executed upon determination of a successful user authentication for the user entity having requested access to the control path (Gold, paragraph 0128, users, authentication).
Regarding claim 17, Gold discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor facilitate performance of operations, comprising: (Gold, paragraph 0384, computer readable storage medium, processor, computer);
identifying a data store comprising access data bounding configuration access by application programming interfaces (APIs) to a control path of a storage system (Gold, paragraph 0292, window of time, schedule at which specific events are to be performed, paragraph 0317, storage systems may be configured via an API, management plane);
enabling a full access to a full amount of the access data to fewer than all administrator entities having access to the data store (Gold; paragraph 0108, remote system administrator, local hardware administrator; paragraph 0108, administrators);
enabling updating of the access data by an administrator entity of the administrator entities (Gold, paragraph 0156, management activities, records, update; paragraph 0362, management plane, updated);
allowing access to the control path by a user entity controlling an API to the control path based on the portion of the access data (Gold, paragraph 0292, window of time, schedule at which specific events are to be performed, paragraph 0317, storage systems may be configured via an API, management plane, paragraph 0133, allow access to file systems);
wherein the portion of the access data corresponds to an access-based time restriction window that defines allowable access to the portion of the access data by the user entity, and wherein the access-based time restriction window is a function of a combination of the user entity and the API (Gold, paragraph 0292, window of time, schedule at which specific events are to be performed, paragraph 0317, storage systems may be configured via an API, management plane; paragraph 0124, access to files, API, users, paragraph 0292, periodicity, window of time after which no further updates need to be generated).
Gold discloses enabling updating the access data by an administrator entity of the administrator entities, but does not explicitly disclose enabling updating of only a portion of the access data by an administrator entity of the administrator entities.
However, in an analogous art, Thomas discloses enabling updating of only a portion of the access data by an administrator entity of the administrator entities (Thomas, paragraph 0249, administrator, secure some or all access into enterprise resources).
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 Thomas with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold to include enabling updating of only a portion of the access data by an administrator entity of the administrator entities to provide users with the benefits of remote access to resources maintained on private networks (Thomas: paragraphs 0008, 0009).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold,(US20190121889), filed July 26, 2018 in view of Thomas (US20040039827), filed April 8, 2003, and further in view of Urbach (US20130042259), filed August 9, 2012.
Regarding claim 4, Gold and Thomas disclose the system of claim 3.
Gold and Thomas do not explicitly disclose wherein the schedule further comprises indications of user entities corresponding to the access-based time windows, and wherein a pair of user entities, of the user entities, have associated therewith different access-based time windows, of the access-based time windows, for the API.
However, in an analogous art, Urbach discloses wherein the schedule further comprises indications of user entities corresponding to the access-based time windows, and wherein a pair of user entities, of the user entities, have associated therewith different access-based time windows, of the access-based time windows, for the API (Urbach, paragraph 0007, API, second user, second window; paragraph 0018, API, second user, second window; paragraph 0024, API, second user, second window).
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 Urbach with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold and Thomas to include wherein the schedule further comprises indications of user entities corresponding to the access-based time windows, and wherein a pair of user entities, of the user entities, have associated therewith different access-based time windows, of the access-based time windows, for the API to provide users with the benefits of exporting and importing graphic objects (Urbach: paragraph 0002).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold,(US20190121889), filed July 26, 2018 in view of Thomas (US20040039827), filed April 8, 2003, and further in view of Lee (KR100809604), published March 4, 2008.
Regarding claim 5, Gold and Thomas disclose the system of claim 3.
Gold and Thomas disclose specified time window and administrative entities, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining a portion of the specified time windows from a first user device associated with a first administrator entity; obtaining a second portion of the specified time windows from a second user device associated with a second administrator entity different from the first administrator entity; and obtaining data defining different time window provision authorities for different APIs for the first administrator entity than for the second administrator entity.
However, Lee discloses wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining a portion of the specified time windows from a first user device associated with a first administrator entity; obtaining a second portion of the specified time windows from a second user device associated with a second administrator entity different from the first administrator entity; and obtaining data defining different time window provision authorities for different APIs for the first administrator entity than for the second administrator entity (Lee, 4th page, lines 27-33, user, time-sharing slot assigned, another 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 Lee with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold and Thomas to include wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining a portion of the specified time windows from a first user device associated with a first administrator entity; obtaining a second portion of the specified time windows from a second user device associated with a second administrator entity different from the first administrator entity; and obtaining data defining different time window provision authorities for different APIs for the first administrator entity than for the second administrator entity to provide users with the benefits of improving reception diversity gain (Lee: 2nd page, lines 17-22).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold,(US20190121889), filed July 26, 2018 in view of Thomas (US20040039827), filed April 8, 2003, and further in view of Aggarwal (US20140229614), filed February 12, 2014.
Regarding claim 6, Gold and Thomas disclose the system of claim 1.
Gold and Thomas do not explicitly disclose wherein the access-based time window complies with a compliance requirement associated with the storage system by defining no period of non-access for a specified user entity.
However, in an analogous art, Aggarwal discloses wherein the access-based time window complies with a compliance requirement associated with the storage system by defining no period of non-access for a specified user entity (Aggarwal, paragraph 0087, intervals, paragraph 0090, SLA compliance algorithm, compliance requirements, each site/ time interval; paragraph 0089, time intervals).
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 Aggarwal with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold and Thomas to include wherein the access-based time window complies with a compliance requirement associated with the storage system by defining no period of non-access for a specified user entity to provide users with the benefits of testing workloads (Aggarwal: paragraph 0007).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold,(US20190121889), filed July 26, 2018 in view of Thomas (US20040039827), filed April 8, 2003, and further in view of Lee (KR100809604), published March 4, 2008.
Regarding claim 7, Gold and Thomas disclose the system of claim 1.
Gold and Thomas do not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: determining whether the specified time window applies to one or more of PUT, POST, DELETE or GET actions associated with the API.
However, in an analogous art, Vadlamani discloses wherein the operations further comprise: determining whether the specified time window applies to one or more of PUT, POST, DELETE or GET actions associated with the API (Vadlamani, paragraph 0040, session, get/ put/ post/ delete commands, APIs).
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 Vadlamani with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold and Thomas to include wherein the operations further comprise: determining whether the specified time window applies to one or more of PUT, POST, DELETE or GET actions associated with the API to provide users with the benefits of protecting data (Vadlamani: abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Gold and Thomas disclose the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17.
Gold and Thomas do not explicitly disclose wherein the access-based time restriction window corresponds specifically to a specified one or more of PUT, POST, DELETE or GET actions requested to be performed by the API at the storage system.
However, in an analogous art, Vadlamani discloses wherein the access-based time restriction window corresponds specifically to a specified one or more of PUT, POST, DELETE or GET actions requested to be performed by the API at the storage system (Vadlamani, paragraph 0040, session, get/ put/ post/ delete commands, APIs).
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 Vadlamani with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold and Thomas to include wherein the access-based time restriction window corresponds specifically to a specified one or more of PUT, POST, DELETE or GET actions requested to be performed by the API at the storage system to provide users with the benefits of protecting data (Vadlamani: abstract).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold,(US20190121889), filed July 26, 2018 in view of Thomas (US20040039827), filed April 8, 2003, and further in view of Novak (US20130005240), filed September 12, 2012.
Regarding claim 11, Gold and Thomas disclose the method of claim 9 and time restriction window (Gold, paragraph 0292, periodicity, window of time after which no further updates need to be generated).
Gold and Thomas do not explicitly disclose further comprising: resolving an instance of conflict between the access-based time restriction window, being a first access-based time restriction window, and a second access-based time restriction window, also associated with the user entity and the API, by employing one access-based time restriction window, of the first access-based time restriction or the second access-based time restriction window, having a most recent date of entry to the data store.
However, in an analogous art, Novak discloses further comprising: resolving an instance of conflict between the access-based time restriction window, being a first access-based time restriction window, and a second access-based time restriction window, also associated with the user entity and the API, by employing one access-based time restriction window of the first access-based time restriction or the second access-based time restriction window, having a most recent date of entry to the data store (Novak, paragraph 0043, management entity, manages, security; paragraph 0092, conflict, conflict resolution, time restriction).
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 Novak with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold and Thomas to include further comprising: resolving an instance of conflict between the access-based time restriction window, being a first access-based time restriction, and a second access-based time restriction window, also associated with the user entity and the API, by employing one access-based time restriction window, of the first access-based time restriction window or the second access-based time restriction window, having a most recent date of entry to the data store to provide users with the benefits of providing dynamic coordination of resource usage in a network environment (Novak: paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 12, Gold and Thomas disclose the method of claim 9 and time restriction window (Gold, paragraph 0292, periodicity, window of time after which no further updates need to be generated).
Gold and Thomas do not explicitly disclose further comprising: resolving an instance of conflict between the access-based time restriction window, being a first access-based time restriction window, and a second access-based time restriction window, also associated with the user entity and the API, by employing one access-based time restriction window of the first access-based time restriction window or the second access-based time restriction window, having data defining a greater administrator entity security level associated therewith.
However, in an analogous art, Novak discloses further comprising: resolving an instance of conflict between the access-based time restriction window, being a first access-based time restriction window, and a second access-based time restriction window, also associated with the user entity and the API, by employing one access-based time restriction window of the first access-based time restriction window or the second access-based time restriction window, having data defining a greater administrator entity security level associated therewith (Novak, paragraph 0043, management entity, manages, security; paragraph 0092, conflict, conflict resolution, time restriction).
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 Novak with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold and Thomas to include further comprising: resolving an instance of conflict between the access-based time restriction window, being a first access-based time restriction window, and a second access-based time restriction window, also associated with the user entity and the API, by employing one access-based time restriction window of the first access-based time restriction window or the second access-based time restriction window, having data defining a greater administrator entity security level associated therewith to provide users with the benefits of providing dynamic coordination of resource usage in a network environment (Novak: paragraph 0002).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold,(US20190121889), filed July 26, 2018 in view of Thomas (US20040039827), filed April 8, 2003, and further in view of Mansell (US20150261538), filed March 10, 2015.
Regarding claim 13, Gold and Thomas disclose the method of claim 9 and time restriction window (Gold, paragraph 0292, periodicity, window of time after which no further updates need to be generated).
Gold and Thomas do not explicitly disclose further comprising: in response to the timing of the access being determined to be within the access-based time restriction window comprised by the entry, spawning a thread to execute a request, associated with the API, requesting configuration access to the control path.
However, in an analogous art, Mansell discloses further comprising: in response to the timing of the access being determined to be within the access-based time restriction window comprised by the entry, spawning a thread to execute a request, associated with the API, requesting configuration access to the control path (Mansell, paragraph 0032, configuration, access, threads, access request, executing).
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 Novak with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold and Thomas to include further comprising: in response to the timing of the access being determined to be within the access-based time restriction window comprised by the entry, spawning a thread to execute a request, associated with the API, requesting configuration access to the control path to provide users with the benefits of executing an access instruction for N threads (Mansell: title).
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold,(US20190121889), filed July 26, 2018 in view of Thomas (US20040039827), filed April 8, 2003, and further in view of Slingerland (US20110321132), filed June 25, 2010.
Regarding claim 14, Gold and Thomas disclose the method of claim 9 and time restriction window (Gold, paragraph 0292, periodicity, window of time after which no further updates need to be generated).
Gold and Thomas do not explicitly disclose further comprising: in response to the timing of the access being determined not to be within the access-based time restriction window comprised by the entry, generating a notification that the access is denied, wherein the notification comprises data defining a reason for the access being denied.
However, in an analogous art, Slingerland discloses further comprising: in response to the timing of the access being determined not to be within the access-based time restriction window comprised by the entry, generating a notification that the access is denied, wherein the notification comprises data defining a reason for the access being denied (Slingerland, paragraph 0025, notify, reason, denial; paragraph 0029, denied, access, time period).
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 Slingerland with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold and Thomas to include further comprising: in response to the timing of the access being determined not to be within the access-based time restriction window comprised by the entry, generating a notification that the access is denied, wherein the notification comprises data defining a reason for the access being denied to provide users with the benefits of automatically granting temporary access to another user’s electronic content (Slingerland: paragraph 0007).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold,(US20190121889), filed July 26, 2018 in view of Thomas (US20040039827), filed April 8, 2003, and further in view of Vishnyakov (US20200134217), filed October 29, 2018
Regarding claim 15, Gold and Thomas disclose the method of claim 9 and time restriction window (Gold, paragraph 0292, periodicity, window of time after which no further updates need to be generated).
Gold and Thomas do not explicitly disclose wherein the generating comprises: generating the access data based on table entries comprised by a table accessible to an administrator entity associated with the control path, wherein the table comprises data defining access to plural different API request types, for the plural APIs, the data being associated with plural user entities, wherein different access-based time entries, comprising the access-based time restriction window, apply to different combinations of the plural different API request types and the plural user entities.
However, in an analogous art, Vishnyakov discloses wherein the generating comprises: generating the access data based on table entries comprised by a table accessible to an administrator entity associated with the control path, wherein the table comprises data defining access to plural different API request types, for the plural APIs, the data being associated with plural user entities, wherein different access-based time entries, comprising the access-based time restriction window, apply to different combinations of the plural different API request types and the plural user entities (Vishnyakov, paragraph 0045, nature of request, types, table, users, API).
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 Novak with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold and Thomas to include wherein the generating comprises: generating the access data based on table entries comprised by a table accessible to an administrator entity associated with the control path, wherein the table comprises data defining access to plural different API request types, for the plural APIs, the data being associated with plural user entities, wherein different access-based time entries, comprising the access-based time restriction window, apply to different combinations of the plural different API request types and the plural user entities to provide users with the benefits of executing an operation set associated with a database system in accordance with approvals from a plurality of data set owners (Vishnyakov: paragraph 0001).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold,(US20190121889), filed July 26, 2018 in view of Thomas (US20040039827), filed April 8, 2003, and Vishnyakov (US20200134217), filed October 29, 2018, and further in view of Ingram (US20130185056), filed December 21, 2012
Regarding claim 16, Gold, Thomas, and Vishnyakov disclose the method of claim 15.
Gold, Thomas, and Vishnyakov do not explicitly disclose wherein the generating comprises: updating the access data based on a successful determination of execution of an update to the table, wherein the updating comprises accessing log data having been written based on completion of the update to the table.
However, in an analogous art, Ingram discloses wherein the generating comprises: updating the access data based on a successful determination of execution of an update to the table, wherein the updating comprises accessing log data having been written based on completion of the update to the table (Ingram, paragraph 0307, update access log data, paragraph 0308, table).
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 Novak with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold, Thomas, and Vishnyakov to include wherein the generating comprises: updating the access data based on a successful determination of execution of an update to the table, wherein the updating comprises accessing log data having been written based on completion of the update to the table to provide users with the benefits of generating test scenarios (Ingram: paragraph 0004).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold,(US20190121889), filed July 26, 2018 in view of Thomas (US20040039827), filed April 8, 2003, and further in view of Vishnyakov (US20200134217), filed October 29, 2018
Regarding claim 19, Gold and Thomas disclose the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17 and time restriction window (Gold, paragraph 0292, periodicity, window of time after which no further updates need to be generated).
Gold and Thomas do not explicitly disclose wherein the access-based time restriction window is further the function of a specified one or more days of a week.
However, in an analogous art, Nangia discloses wherein the access-based time restriction window is further the function of a specified one or more days of a week (Nangia, paragraph 0027, super administrator; paragraph 0066, restrict access to day specified by governing authorities).
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 Nangia with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold and Thomas to include wherein the access-based time restriction window is further the function of a specified one or more days of a week to provide users with the benefits of a platform that provides a secure way for facilitating correspondence between the tele-calling executive and the potential customers (Nangia: paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 20, Gold and Thomas disclose the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17.
Gold and Thomas do not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: enabling updating of any of the access data by a super administrator entity of the administrator entities; and overriding an update by the administrator entity based on an update request received from the super administrator entity.
However, in an analogous art, Nangia discloses wherein the operations further comprise: enabling updating of any of the access data by a super administrator entity of the administrator entities (Nangia, paragraph 0027, super administrator; paragraph 0066, restrict access to day specified by governing authorities);
overriding an update by the administrator entity based on an update request received from the super administrator entity (Nangia, paragraph 0027, super administrator; paragraph 0066, restrict access to day specified by governing authorities).
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 Nangia with the system/method/ non-transitory machine-readable medium of Gold and Thomas to include wherein the access-based time restriction is further the function of a specified one or more days of a week to provide users with the benefits of a platform that provides a secure way for facilitating correspondence between the tele-calling executive and the potential customers (Nangia: paragraph 0006).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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