DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12052254. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims of patent application contain every element of claims above instant application or vice versa, and as such they anticipate or anticipated by Instant Application. As to Claims 1, 11, of the Pat. *254 anticipates the claims of the instant application. By way of illustration, consider the respective claim 1 from each disclosure:
Claim 1 of the instant application
Claim 1 of the ‘254 Patent
1. A computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a user of a user account, a request for escalated privileges of the user account to perform a task requiring the escalated privileges, the escalated privileges greater than specified privileges assigned to the user account, wherein the task is not permitted for user accounts assigned the specified privileges; determining that the task requires the escalated privileges; based on determining that the task requires the escalated privileges, temporarily granting the escalated privileges to the user account for a specified duration, the escalated privileges temporarily granted to the user account comprising a restriction normally permitted for user accounts comprising the escalated privileges; and based on expiration of the specified duration, restoring the specified privileges to the user account.
1. A computer-implemented method when executed on data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a user of a user account, a request to temporarily escalate privileges of the user account to permit access to a plurality of resources in a distributed computing environment, the request comprising a duration specified by the user for the privileges to be escalated, the temporarily escalated privileges greater than current privileges assigned to the user account; granting the temporarily escalated privileges to the user account, the temporarily escalated privileges comprising a restriction prohibiting the user account from performing an activity using one of the plurality of resources, the activity normally permitted for user accounts comprising the temporarily escalated privileges; during the specified duration while the temporarily escalated privileges are granted to the user account, detecting a user generated particular event from the user account; determining that the user generated particular event detected from the user account comprises an attempt by the user account to perform the activity prohibited by the restriction of the temporarily escalated privileges using the one of the plurality of resources; and in response to detecting the attempt by the user account to perform the activity prohibited by the restriction, sending an alert to a registered administrator of the plurality of resources.
Independent claims 1, 11 of the instant application are substantially similar to independent claims 1, 11, of the Pat. *254 and are rejected for substantially similar reasons as discussed supra. Likewise, dependent claims 2-10, 12-20 of the instant application are substantially similar to dependent claims 2-10, 12-20 (respectively) of the Pat. *254 and are rejected for substantially similar reasons as discussed supra.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites receiving, from a user of a user account, a request for escalated privileges of the user account to perform a task requiring the escalated privileges…determining that the task requires the escalated privileges…based on determining…temporarily granting the escalated privileges…based on expiration of the specified duration, restoring the specified privileges….The limitations above, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “executed by data processing hardware” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasishth et al (Pub. No. US 2006/0143447) in view of Ezra et al (Pub. No. US 2017/0006044).
As per claim 1, Vasishth discloses a computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a user of a user account, a request for escalated privileges of the user account to perform a task requiring the escalated privileges, the escalated privileges greater than specified privileges assigned to the user account (…the user requests an elevated right account, see par. 16…an elevated right account provides greater rights to the associated user…see par. 28), wherein the task is not permitted for user accounts assigned the specified privileges (…the user will be able to perform a task such as accessing the domain controller using the elevated right account, but the user will not be able to access the domain controller through the basic user account…see par. 27); determining that the task requires the escalated privileges (temporary elevated access can be granted when a user is called upon to perform a task on a temporary bases that requires access over and above that held for his/her routine job responsibilities…see par. 38); based on determining that the task requires the escalated privileges, temporarily granting the escalated privileges to the user account for a specified duration, the escalated privileges temporarily granted to the user account comprising a restriction normally permitted for user accounts comprising the escalated privileges (…the IT personnel grant elevated rights based on job responsibility criteria…the job responsibility criteria can include the frequency of the tasks (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly) and a specified time limit associated with the tasks (e.g., not longer than one month) …the IT personnel can grant an elevated right account in a manner that is customized to the job responsibility criteria…the elevated right account may have a lifecycle of only one month if the associated job responsibility lasts only one month…the user will be able to perform a task such as accessing the domain controller using the elevated right account, but the user will not be able to access the domain controller through the basic user account…see par. 23, 27). Vasishth does not explicitly disclose based on expiration of the specified duration, restoring the specified privileges to the user account. However Ezra discloses based on expiration of the specified duration, restoring the specified privileges to the user account (…these elevated privileges typically include a time limit on the user's access to the elevated privileges…when the elevated privileges are provided on a just-in-time manner, the elevated privileges may have predetermined time period (e.g., of one hour)…the time period for the elevated privileges may be determined by the privileges manager…the privileged identity management system may designate time when the user is preapproved for elevated privileges…for example, the privileged identity management system may provide elevated privileges from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, which would cause the elevated privileges to expire at 5:00 PM…the user may continue their work session without the elevated privileges…see par. 47, 50). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Ezra in Vasishth for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve user accounts’ levels of authorization to computer systems and software applications, see Ezra, par. 1-3.
As per claim 11, Vasishth discloses a system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware (see fig.3), the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a user of a user account, a request for escalated privileges of the user account to perform a task requiring the escalated privileges, the escalated privileges greater than specified privileges assigned to the user account (…the user requests an elevated right account, see par. 16…an elevated right account provides greater rights to the associated user…see par. 28), wherein the task is not permitted for user accounts assigned the specified privileges (…the user will be able to perform a task such as accessing the domain controller using the elevated right account, but the user will not be able to access the domain controller through the basic user account…see par. 27); determining that the task requires the escalated privileges (temporary elevated access can be granted when a user is called upon to perform a task on a temporary bases that requires access over and above that held for his/her routine job responsibilities…see par. 38); based on determining that the task requires the escalated privileges, temporarily granting the escalated privileges to the user account for a specified duration, the escalated privileges temporarily granted to the user account comprising a restriction normally permitted for user accounts comprising the escalated privileges (…the IT personnel grant elevated rights based on job responsibility criteria…the job responsibility criteria can include the frequency of the tasks (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly) and a specified time limit associated with the tasks (e.g., not longer than one month) …the IT personnel can grant an elevated right account in a manner that is customized to the job responsibility criteria…the elevated right account may have a lifecycle of only one month if the associated job responsibility lasts only one month…the user will be able to perform a task such as accessing the domain controller using the elevated right account, but the user will not be able to access the domain controller through the basic user account…see par. 23, 27). Vasishth does not explicitly disclose based on expiration of the specified duration, restoring the specified privileges to the user account. However Ezra discloses based on expiration of the specified duration, restoring the specified privileges to the user account (…these elevated privileges typically include a time limit on the user's access to the elevated privileges…when the elevated privileges are provided on a just-in-time manner, the elevated privileges may have predetermined time period (e.g., of one hour)…the time period for the elevated privileges may be determined by the privileges manager…the privileged identity management system may designate time when the user is preapproved for elevated privileges…for example, the privileged identity management system may provide elevated privileges from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, which would cause the elevated privileges to expire at 5:00 PM…the user may continue their work session without the elevated privileges…see par. 47, 50). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Ezra in Vasishth for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve user accounts’ levels of authorization to computer systems and software applications, see Ezra, par. 1-3.
As per claims 2, 12, the combination of Vasishth and Ezra discloses wherein the operations further comprise, upon granting the escalated privileges, starting a timer set to expire after an amount of time equal to the specified duration (Ezra: see par. 47). The motivation for claims 2, 12 is the same motivation as in claims 1, 11 above.
As per claims 3, 13, the combination of Vasishth and Ezra discloses wherein the operations further comprise, prior to expiration of the timer: receiving an extension request to extend the specified duration to an extended duration; determining that the extension request is allowable; and based on determining that the extension request is allowable, setting the expiration of the timer to an amount of time equal to the extended duration (Ezra: see par. 37, 47). The motivation for claims 3, 13 is the same motivation as in claims 1, 11 above.
As per claims 4, 14, the combination of Vasishth and Ezra discloses wherein the request comprises an identifier of the user account and requested privileges (Vasishth: see par. 24-25).
As per claims 9, 19, the combination of Vasishth and Ezra discloses wherein the task comprises upgrading software (Vasishth: see par. 37).
Claims 5-8, 10, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasishth et al (Pub. No. US 2006/0143447) in view of Ezra et al (Pub. No. US 2017/0006044) as applied to claims 1, 11 above, and further in view of Reich et al (Pub. No. US 2020/0065494).
As per claims 5, 15, the combination of Vasishth and Ezra does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise identifying a list of prohibited activities for the user account while the user account is granted the escalated privileges. However Reich discloses wherein the operations further comprise identifying a list of prohibited activities for the user account while the user account is granted the escalated privileges (…this security rule can be applied based on checking for create table, alter table, drop table, or grant operations where the user performing the operation does not belong to the list of authorized users that were granted the system privilege explicitly (and not via the PUBLIC role) that was identified by a database assessment scan…see par. 24). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Seigel in the combination of Vasishth and Ezra for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further protect the database from security breaches and passing database compliance audits…see Reich, par. 4.
As per claims 6, 16, the combination of Vasishth, Ezra and Reich disclose wherein the operations further comprise detecting an attempt by the user account to perform one of the prohibited activities from the list of prohibited activities (Reich: see par. 24). The motivation for claims 6, 16 is the same motivation as in claims 5, 15 above.
As per claims 7, 17, the combination of Vasishth, Ezra and Reich disclose wherein the operations further comprise, based on detecting the attempt by the user account to perform one of the prohibited activities from the list of prohibited activities, revoking the escalated privileges granted to the user account (Reich: see par. 32). The motivation for claims 7, 17 is the same motivation as in claims 5, 15 above.
As per claims 8, 18, the combination of Vasishth, Ezra and Reich disclose wherein revoking the escalated privileges granted to the user account comprises revoking the escalated privileges before the specified duration has expired (Reich: see par. 40). The motivation for claims 8, 18 is the same motivation as in claims 5, 15 above.
As per claims 10, 20, the combination of Vasishth, Ezra and Reich disclose wherein the task executes on a private cloud (Reich: see par. 3). The motivation for claims 10, 20 is the same motivation as in claims 5, 15 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-form 892).
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to escalating user privileges in cloud computing environments.
Seigel et al (Pub. No. US 2017/0161503); “Determining a Risk Indicator Based on Classifying Documents Using a Classifier”;
-Teaches by looking at user accounts that are using the access privileges associated with the user accounts, determining risk shifts from what the user accounts are capable of doing to what the user accounts are actually doing, e.g., what classification of resources are being accessed, how often the resources are being accessed…see par. 22.
Beckhardt et al (Pub. No. US 2015/0358310); “Cloud Queue Access Control”;
-Teaches a host of a cloud queue may restrict access to entities having a valid authentication token…see par. 27.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL B SHEHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7479. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PCT.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/GHAZAL B SHEHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499