DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to application/ communications filed on 10/01/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract repeats information given in the title “Systems and methods for integrating computer applications is disclosed” (see line 1).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 8 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites the limitations “the secondary product platform” (see line 5), “the primary product platform” (see line 7), “the second backend system” (see line 8), and “the first backend system” (see lines 15-16). There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “and and” in lines 6-7. Applicant recommends amending the claim to remove redundant occurrence of the word “and” in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
what happens upon determining that the user is a licensed user of the secondary product platform,
what happens upon determining that the project of the primary product platform is linked to the corresponding space of the secondary product platform.
For example, representative claim 1 recites:
determining, via at least the second backend system, whether the user is a licensed user of the secondary product platform;
upon determining that the user is not a licensed user of the secondary product platform, generating and communicating a second permission check request to the first backend system of the primary product platform.
However, the claim does not clarify what happens if the user is a licensed user of the secondary product platform.
Similarly, claim 1 further recites:
… determining whether the project of the primary product platform is linked to a corresponding space of the secondary product platform associated with the resource;
granting access, via the second backend system, to the resource upon determining that the project of the primary product platform is linked to the corresponding space of the secondary product platform.
However, the claim also does not clarify what happens if the project of the primary product platform is linked to a corresponding space of the secondary product platform associated with the resource.
For these reasons, the inventions recited in independent claim 1 is incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps.
Claims 8 and 15 are also rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, as same rationale applies.
Dependent claims do not further and/or fully clarify in these matter. Therefore, they are also rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons For The Indication Of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowance of the claims in this application is the inclusion of the specific details of determining, via at least the second backend system, whether the user is a licensed user of the secondary product platform; upon determining that the user is not a licensed user of the secondary product platform, generating and communicating a second permission check request to the first backend system of the primary product platform, the second permission check request comprising the user identifier of the user of the primary client and a project identifier of a project of the primary product platform; receiving, from the first backend system, a positive indication from the first backend system of the primary product platform in response to the second permission check request, the positive indication indicating that the user identifier of the user is associated with at least one permission maintained and checked via the primary product platform, wherein the at least one permission is indicated in the second permission check request; upon receiving the positive indication from the first backend system of the primary product platform, determining whether the project of the primary product platform is linked to a corresponding space of the secondary product platform associated with the resource; granting access, via the second backend system, to the resource upon determining that the project of the primary product platform is linked to the corresponding space of the secondary product platform, wherein the access is associated with the current session and will expire at the end of the current session, wherein granting access includes: retrieving, by the second backend system, the resource requested; and forwarding, from the secondary product platform to the requesting entity, the resource.
It must also be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the limitations presented in the independent claims, taken together as a whole and as presented, cannot be rejected by the prior art of record without using a level of hindsight reasoning that is impermissible. Specifically, the closest prior-art references US 20190236292 A1, US 20210241357 A1, US 20200153818 A1, US 11012441 B2, and US 20220027449 A1, neither alone, nor in combination can be used to reject the independent claims based on the questions of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KOUSHIK et al. (US 20160134616 A1) discloses desktop application fulfillment platform with multiple authentication mechanisms.
Messina et al. (US 20120166316 A1) teaches collective community method of integrated internet-based tools for independent contractors, their collaborators, and customers.
Jain et al. (US 20220058719 A1) discloses e-commerce marketplace with automatic identification of customer as associated with a third-party system.
Fujioka (US 20130254660 A1) teaches overlay system that includes an access control configured to permit or deny access request in second operating environment to resources/ data.
Sallam (US 20160232348 A1) determines whether a request is indicative of malware; and allow or deny the request to access the resource based upon the determination.
Bennettet al. (US 20220027449 A1) teaches allowing access to computer applications.
MARIEN (US 20160191498 A1) discloses user authentication based on personal access.
Katta (US 20220198007 A1) performs URL closure check in distributed systems.
Totale et al. (US 11012441 B2) discloses hybrid authentication systems and methods.
Subbiah et al. (US 8544069 B1) implements user access to remote resources.
Fadel et al. (US 7069271 B1) provides integrated functions with internet storefronts.
LEWIS et al. (US 20100063864 A1) automatically initiates secondary evaluation process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453