DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 8-10 contain shaded grey and black areas, and lines that are not uniformly thick and well defined. See MPEP §608.02, 37 CFR 1.84 (I), and 37 CFR 1.84 (m).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.1 21 (d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, method claims 1-9 are directed to a series of steps, apparatus claims 10-15 are directed to a processor; and a memory storing computer readable instructions, and computer-readable medium claims 16-20 are directed to storing computer readable instructions thereon. Thus the claims are directed to a process, machine, and manufacture, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite updating data associated with a user group, including authenticating, granting, receiving, updating, identifying, synchronizing, and sending steps.
The limitations of authenticating, granting, receiving, updating, identifying, synchronizing, and sending, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite authenticating based on user information, a computing device; granting the computing device, based on the authenticating, access to a plurality of applications managed by a secondary group management service layer associated with the server; receiving a message indicating to update data associated with a user group; updating, based on the message, data stored; identifying, based on the data stored in the centralized data storage, one or more applications, of the plurality of applications, associated with the user group; synchronizing data; and based on the synchronized data sending, to one or more members of the user group, a notification of updated data associated with the user group.
That is, other than reciting a primary group management service layer associated with a server, a computing device via a graphical management service user interface associated with the secondary group management service layer, in a centralized data storage managed by the secondary group management service layer, one or more distributed data storages, and one or more graphical application user interfaces, the claim limitations merely cover managing relationships and interactions between people, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include a primary group management service layer associated with a server, a computing device via a graphical management service user interface associated with the secondary group management service layer, in a centralized data storage managed by the secondary group management service layer, one or more distributed data storages, and one or more graphical application user interfaces. The primary group management service layer associated with a server, computing device via a graphical management service user interface associated with the secondary group management service layer, in a centralized data storage managed by the secondary group management service layer, one or more distributed data storages, and one or more graphical application user interfaces in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a primary group management service layer associated with a server, a computing device via a graphical management service user interface associated with the secondary group management service layer, in a centralized data storage managed by the secondary group management service layer, one or more distributed data storages, and one or more graphical application user interfaces amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 3 recite additional accessing, bypassing, and establishing steps. Claims 4-6 further describe updating data, and recite additional determining, resending, detecting, and indicating steps. Claims 7-9 recite additional prompting and storing steps, and further describe sending the notification of updated data. Similarly, dependent claims 11-15 and 17-20 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, a primary group management service layer associated with a server, a computing device via a graphical management service user interface associated with the secondary group management service layer, in a centralized data storage managed by the secondary group management service layer, one or more distributed data storages, and one or more graphical application user interfaces.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraphs 0035-0036 of the specification, “Computing device 201 may be used as a server 206a in a single-server or multi-server desktop virtualization system (e.g., a remote access or cloud system) and can be configured to provide virtual machines for client access devices. The computing device 201 may have a processor 203 for controlling overall operation of the device 201 and its associated components, including RAM 205, ROM 207, Input/Output (I/O) module 209, and memory 215. I/O module 209 may include a mouse, keypad, touch screen, scanner, optical reader, and/or stylus (or other input device(s)) through which a user of computing device 201 may provide input, and may also include one or more of a speaker for providing audio output and one or more of a video display device for providing textual, audiovisual, and/or graphical output.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mott (US 20180351957 A1).
As per claim 1, Mott discloses a method comprising:
authenticating, by a primary group management service layer associated with a server and based on user information, a computing device (i.e., The access control system 102 manages user access authentication by determining a user's roles within an organization (or within external partner organizations) and providing the user access to computer applications corresponding to that user's role, ¶ 0038);
granting the computing device, based on the authenticating, access to a plurality of applications managed by a secondary group management service layer associated with the server (i.e., providing the user access to computer applications corresponding to that user's role, ¶ 0038);
receiving, from the computing device via a graphical management service user interface associated with the secondary group management service layer, a message indicating to update data associated with a user group (i.e., Other assembly lines include a CreatePartner Organization assembly line 366, which may be used to onboard a new external partnering system and it's user for access by the access control system. A ModifyPartner Organization assembly line 368 may be used to allow external partnering systems to modify their roles, groups, users, user access rights, group access rights, ¶ 0070);
updating, based on the message, data stored in a centralized data storage managed by the secondary group management service layer (i.e., Other assembly lines include a CreatePartner Organization assembly line 366, which may be used to onboard a new external partnering system and it's user for access by the access control system. A ModifyPartner Organization assembly line 368 may be used to allow external partnering systems to modify their roles, groups, users, user access rights, group access rights, ¶ 0070);
identifying, based on the data stored in the centralized data storage, one or more applications, of the plurality of applications, associated with the user group (i.e., the user may be part of a group of users, sharing a similar persona, where an assigned group owner 414 has access to the applications 408, 410, and 412 through the same abstraction layer, ¶ 0072);
synchronizing, by the secondary group management service layer associated with the server, data stored in one or more distributed data storages with the data stored in the centralized data storage, each distributed data storage associated with respective one of the identified one or more applications of the plurality of applications (i.e., a process access request module 208, a process approval request module 210, a process external business partner user management module 212, a process partner organization management module 214, a process group management module 116, and synchronization module 218 for synchronizing configuration and other data, ¶ 0048); and
based on the synchronized data and via one or more graphical application user interfaces, each associated with respective one of the identified one or more applications, sending, to one or more members of the user group, a notification of updated data associated with the user group (i.e., Notifications are achieved within the workflow, as well. The ISIM has built-in capability to send email notifications to users on tasks such as approvals, requests for information, and informative notifications such as request completion and reminders, ¶ 0077).
As per claim 2, Mott discloses based on a lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) and via the secondary group management service layer, accessing, by the primary group management service layer, the plurality of applications, wherein each of the plurality of applications comprises a distributed data storage that is blocked, by a boundary, from other distributed data storages of other applications of the plurality of applications (i.e., a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) module 122 for sharing information about users, systems, networks, services, and applications throughout the environment 100, a user roles processing module 124 for processing onboarding and offboarding requests, and a risk scoring module 126 for scoring user access to computer applications to be used by the roles processing module 124 for real time decisions on what access to grant users, ¶ 0043).
As per claim 3, Mott discloses performing, by the primary group management service layer, a single sign-on (SSO) based authentication process with the computing device; based on successful completion of the SSO based authentication process, bypassing boundaries, set by the primary group management service layer, between the distributed data storages associated with the plurality of applications (i.e., The portal 604 sends a request 606 via an abstraction layer 605 to access a local user directory 608 for generating an access token. In some examples, the portal 604 may be a Single Sign-On (SSO) agent, such as an OKTA agent, which may be an enterprise-grade, identity management service, ¶ 0079); establishing, by the secondary group management service layer, the graphical management service user interface between the computing device and the plurality of applications; and bypassing the primary group management service layer and managing, via the graphical management service user interface, the distributed data storages without the boundaries (i.e., transmit requests in an agnostic manner not reliant upon any one particular format for requests. The systems and methods function as a pass through that enables the front-end and backend systems to “talk” to each other. Additionally, because the systems and methods disclosed are decoupled from the front-end and backend systems they are able to interface with multiple systems, ¶ 0031).
As per claim 4, Mott discloses updating member information of the user group stored in the centralized data storage by: adding one or more new members to the user group, deleting one or more members of the user group, changing member contact information of the user group, or changing a class of one or more members of the user group (i.e., The group owner 414 can change roles, by adding or deleting roles for the group. The group owner 414 can change users in the group by adding or removing members through a manage group membership application 416, ¶ 0072).
As per claim 5, Mott discloses determining, based on the synchronized data, that one or more members of the user group are changed; and resending, based on the determining, a notification of a previously scheduled event to the one or more members of the user group (i.e., If the Approver rejects the access request, the ISIM will “fail” the request and notification will be sent to affected user through the portal. If the Approver approves the access request, the request passes to the next node in workflow, ¶ 0076).
As per claim 6, Mott discloses detecting a member of the user group searching, via one or more of the identified one or more applications, for the user group; and based on the detecting, indicating, to the member, a changed status of one or more members of the user group (i.e., application search field 1402, a show all applications toggle 1404, and a request access for another user button 1406, ¶ 0098).
As per claim 7, Mott discloses prompting, based on the synchronized data and via one or more of the identified one or more applications, a text message indicating one or more changed statuses of one or more members of the user group and one or more names of the user group (i.e., Through the window requests for accessing applications, changing roles, etc. can be managed. All of the components/fields in the screenshot 1300 may be implemented as linkable panels in the window, as drop down menus, as text entry fields, or any other human/interaction input functionality, ¶ 0094).
As per claim 8, Mott discloses a message indicating a name of the user group and that the one or more members no longer belongs to the user group (i.e., portal 206 further includes an access management module 222 that provides user and others an ability to request/remove access on specific applications integrated with portal, an external business partner module 224 that provides functionality to external business partners, and a partnering management module 226 that provides identity owners and custodians the ability to manage accounts of partner users, ¶ 0049).
As per claim 9, Mott discloses a data structure storing a name of the user group, a creator of the user group, a type of the user group, member information of the user group, a creation time of the user group, and a last update time of the user group (i.e., ser characteristics, such as user persona, or user group, may be used to determine user access, where the system provides users in different groups access to different resources, ¶ 0033, wherein The access control system 102 can provide, in a single computing system, the portal 104 as an interface for managers, administrators, etc. through which access privilege policies may be set by security rules, where user groups can be defined and group access roles set, ¶ 0039).
Claims 10-15 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-6, respectively, since they are the apparatus claims corresponding to the method claims.
Claims 16-20 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-5, respectively, since they are the computer readable medium claims corresponding to the method claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in the PTO-892, considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, discloses group and member management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights