DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
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 1-2, 8-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rath (US pub. No.2021/0014136) in view of White et al (US Pub. No. 2010/0088331).
Re Claim 1. Rath discloses a system, comprising: a processor configured to: automatically determine an administrator for an application associated with an organization by processing logs for [Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) visited by] a user (i.e. the support ticket topics machine-learning models 322 and/or 336 determining which product is experiencing the problem described in a support ticket can enable a support organization to identify which support agents have the required skills to handle the problem and required experience with the estimated complexity to resolve the problem,) [Rath, para.0026]; match the [URLs for] patterns that the administrator of that application visits using a machine learning (ML) model or based on known [URL] patterns (i.e. use the summary rows for the support agents in the support agent-topical skills matrix to identify Bob and Dana as support agents who had skills handling the remote mount problem of the closed support ticket 100……………… the training server 312 can capture the breadth and depth of support agents' expertise, and patterns in the support agents' prior experiences) [Rath, para.0089, 0049, see also 0040-0043]; and send the determined administrator for the application associated with the organization to an external service (i.e. The production support tickets assignment system 332 can provide recommendations for support agents to accept assignment of a given support ticket in a decentralized approach, where each support agent views a list of support ticket s they are best suited for in their own user interface, or the production support tickets assignment system 332 can directly assign support ticket s to support agents) [Rath, para.0083, see also 0110 and Fig. 3 which depicts the assignment system and the users/agents may all be connected remotely via a cloud network]; and a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions [Rath, Fig.5].
Rath does not explicitly disclose whereas White does: determine an administrator …… by processing logs for Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) visited by a user (i.e. he monitor system 104 may monitor other portions of a browsing session, such as monitoring branchiness of a search. Experts in a domain tend to have searches that have many branches, where the expert may follow a link, then retrace their steps and follow a different link. In general, an expert in a domain often attempts to compare or confirm one source against another when doing a search within their field of specialty, and an expert will visit more different web sites, as measured by a second level domain or third level domain web address………………………Technical domain experts and novices tend to visit different websites. In many cases, specific pages or second level domains may indicate that a user is a technical expert……………. The browser 204 may allow a user 202 to select a website through several different mechanisms. Many browsers may have a text box in which a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) …may be entered to access a specific website or web page) [White, para.0048, 0053, 0092] and match the URLs for patterns that the administrator ……visits ……. based on known URL patterns (i.e. an expert site database 118 may contain a list of websites that are frequently visited by experts and novices. A website may be queried against the expert site database 118 to determine a technical domain and an expert level for the website) [White, para.0056-0057].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rath with White because a user's expertise may be determined and refined over many browsing sessions. As measurement of the user's expertise is refined, the user expertise factor may be used by a search engine to enhance the search results [White, para.0012].
Re Claim 2. Rath in view of White discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the logs include one or more firewall logs (i.e. a web browser 204 may keep a session log. In some cases, a proxy or firewall may keep a session log that may be analyzed by a branchiness evaluator) [White, para.0100].
The same motivation to modify with White, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 8. Rath in view of White discloses the system of claim 1, Rath in view of White discloses: wherein the ML model includes an ML-based classifier or a Large Language Model (LLM) for classifying the URLs as being associated with administrator activity for the application (i.e. The expert site database 118 may be populated in several different ways. In one method, the websites visited by other experts in a technical domain may be cataloged and ranked based on the visits by the other experts. In such an embodiment, a website may have an expert level repeatedly updated as experts or novices access the website) [White, para.00057, Note: repeatedly updating classification of websites as being expert level teaches machine learning classifier].
The same motivation to modify with White, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 9. Rath in view of White discloses the system of claim 1, Rath further discloses: wherein the ML model includes a Large Language Model (LLM) for classifying the [URLs as being associated with] administrator activity for the application, and wherein the processor is further configured to: generate one or more prompts for the LLM (i.e. When a customer opens a support ticket and uses natural language to describe the issue they are having with a product, product feature, or product use case, the servers 312 and/or 314 can receive the support ticket and use the natural language processor machine-learning models 320 and/or 334 to analyze the received support ticket……………... This natural language processor machine-learning model 320 may be trained as an attentional machine learning model to learn not just the weights of the input words and phrases in how they pertain to a classifier, but also which words and phrases are most relevant to predictions of a classifier given the structure of the input words and phrases……………… The language-aware techniques may result in increased accuracy of the natural language processor machine-learning model 334, and greater confidence by support organizations that the production support tickets assignment system 332 assigns a support agent with sufficient experience to a support ticket) [Rath, para.0026, 0072, 0076].
White further teaches: classifying URLs as being associated with administrator activity [White, para.0056-0057].
The same motivation to modify with White, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 10. Rath in view of White discloses the system of claim 1, Rath in view of White further discloses: wherein the processor is further configured to: generate scores for each of the URLs and rank users visiting the URLs by frequency (i.e. some embodiments may increase a user's expertise level when the user visits such sites frequently) [White, para.0055].
The same motivation to modify with White, as in claim 1, applies.
Rath further discloses: to determine top ranked users as candidates for the administrator for the application associated with the organization (i.e. The training server 312 can weigh the topics, and then aggregate all support tickets for each support agent, thereby creating one summary row for each support agent, which captures each support agent's overall skills, both in terms of volume or quantity and in terms of support quality, in handling support tickets that have certain product-related topics, which are the columns in the matrix…………….. the production support tickets assignment system 332 generates a score of 45 for assigning the open support ticket 200 to Bob. This score of 45 is based on Bob having skills handling the remote mount problem of the open support ticket 200, no experiences resolving high complexity support tickets such as the open support ticket 200, a workload that would have permitted resolving a high complexity support ticket, and the availability to be assigned the open support ticket 200. In a further example, the production support tickets assignment system 332 generates a score of 90 for assigning the open support ticket 200 to Dana. This score of 90 is based on Dana having skills handling the remote mount problem of the open support ticket 200, experiences resolving high complexity support tickets such as the open support ticket 200, a workload that would have permitted resolving the high complexity support ticket 200, and the availability to be assigned the open support ticket 200. Since Dana's score of 90 is higher than Bob's score of 45, the production support tickets assignment system 332 assigns the open support ticket 200 to Dan) [Rath, para.0043, 0062].
Re Claims 11-12. These claims recite features similar to those in claims 1-2 respectively, therefore they are similarly rejected.
Re Claims 18-19. These claims recite features similar to those in claims 1-2 respectively, therefore they are similarly rejected.
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rath in view of White and further in view of Ahmed (US Pub.No.2023/0019015).
Re Claim 4. Rath in view of White discloses the system of claim 1, Rath in view of White does not explicitly disclose whereas Ahmed does: wherein a scheduler service is used to identify the known [URL] patterns based on public API documentation (i.e. The timer may be initialized as a service, daemon, or other background process that cannot be interacted with by the user. The timer may be set to the timer length as determined…………… Privileged APIs are those that require administrator or system level privileges, as laid out in the privileged API DB. To determine what privileged API calls were made, the record of the API repository corresponding to the process at issue may be compared against the privileged API DB. To determine whether the administrator APIs called by the process being analyzed were successful, OS logs (e.g., Windows Event Log) may be referenced to see if the OS prevented the execution of an API call due to improper permission of the process) [Ahmed, para.0045, 0051], (i.e. Every application 200 that is opened on a system creates at least one process 202. A process 202 is an instance of a particular application, and a single application 200 may have several processes 202 as it may rely on several applications. For example, a web browser, such as Google Chrome, is an application that may have several processes running at once) [Ahmed, para.0025].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rath in view of White with Ahmed because the privilege escalation monitor facilitates the monitoring and prevention of privilege escalation attacks on a computer system [Ahmed, para.0018].
Ahmed does not explicitly disclose whereas White does: known URL patterns (i.e. an expert site database 118 may contain a list of websites that are frequently visited by experts and novices) [White, para.0056]. The same motivation to modify with White, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 5. Rath in view of White discloses the system of claim 1, Rath in view of White does not explicitly disclose whereas White in view of Ahmed does: wherein a scheduler service is used to identify the known URL patterns based on public API documentation [as in claim 4],
The same motivations to modify with White and Ahmed, as in claim 4, apply.
Rath in view of White and Ahmed does not explicitly disclose: and the known URL patterns are matched using a regular expression (regex) pattern matcher.
However, Ahmed teaches that the API repository may be a text file [Ahmed, para.0021], therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ahmed to include “the known URL patterns are matched using a regular expression (regex) pattern matcher” because it yields the expected result of facilitating the comparison of text patterns.
Re Claims 14-15. These claims recite features similar to those in claims 4-5 respectively, therefore they are similarly rejected.
Claims 3, 6-7, 13, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rath in view of White and further in view of Pitre (US Pub.No.2019/0102162).
Re Claim 3. Rath in view of White discloses the system of claim 1, Rath in view of White does not explicitly disclose whereas Pitre does: wherein the application is a Software as a Service (SaaS) application (i.e. assuming there is an application instance to be integrated with the cloud, the application has properties describing its capabilities. The application may be an Oracle PaaS/SaaS service,) [Pitre, para.0245].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rath in view of White with Pitre because An automated user provisioning capability within an identity cloud solution can be important not only in its own right but also as part of a hybrid IAM solution whereby IDCS provisioning may provide greater flexibility than an on-premise solution for transitions as a company downsizes, upsizes, merges, or looks to integrate existing systems with IaaS/PaaS/SaaS environments. [Pitre, para.0067].
Re Claims 13 and 20. These claims recite features similar to those in claim 3, therefore they are rejected in a similar manner.
Re Claim 6. Rath in view of White discloses the system of claim 1, Rath in view of White does not explicitly disclose whereas Pitre does: wherein the external service is a security service service (i.e. This includes providing users with the application access appropriate for their identity and role within the organization, certifying that they have the correct ongoing access permissions (e.g., as their role or the tasks or applications used within their role change over time), and promptly de-provisioning them as their departure from the organization may require. This is important not only for meeting various compliance requirements but also because inappropriate insider access is a major source of security breaches and attacks) [Pitre, para.0067].
The same motivation to modify with Pitre, as in claim 3, applies.
Re Claim 7. Rath in view of White discloses the system of claim 1, Rath in view of White does not explicitly disclose whereas Pitre does: wherein the external service is a security service (i.e. This includes providing users with the application access appropriate for their identity and role within the organization, certifying that they have the correct ongoing access permissions (e.g., as their role or the tasks or applications used within their role change over time), and promptly de-provisioning them as their departure from the organization may require. This is important not only for meeting various compliance requirements but also because inappropriate insider access is a major source of security breaches and attacks)[Pitre, para.0067], and wherein the determined administrator for the application associated with the organization is sent to the security service for onboarding the application associated with the organization for security management (i.e. In the fully opt-in mode, the background application upgrade process does not update existing applications automatically. Instead, the background application upgrade process sets a flag in the application that causes the IDCS administration console to display to customer's administrators an indication that new/updated behavior is available. The customer's administrator may then use the IDCS administration console to update each existing application to enable the new/updated behavior) [Pitre, para.0260].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rath in view of White with Pitre because This can prevent an outage because existing applications may have no longer worked without the update [Pitre, para.257].
Re Claims 16-17. These claims recite features similar to those in claims 6-7 respectively, therefore they are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOURA ZOUBAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-7285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, ALI SHAYANFAR can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights