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 is in response to the communication filed on 06+/25/2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are pending in the application. Claim 1 is independent. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 have been rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of remarks, filed on 06/25/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of Chari et al. reference. (See office action below for detail explanations)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2014/0228976 A1 (hereinafter K. S. et al.) in view of US 2022/0368651 A1 (hereinafter LUU et al.)
Regarding claim 1, K. S. et al. teaches a method for administering access rights to a unit in a renewable power generating system (note Title: power plant control system), the method comprising:
assigning a set of access rights to a user, the set of access rights granting permission for the user to perform a set of predefined actions with regard to the renewable power generating system (note para. [0043], [0080]: the central server managing users and their roles/ access rights),
logging actions performed by the user with regard to the renewable power generating system (note para. [0055]: activity logging file) and the set of predefined actions related to the set of access rights (note para. [0058], [0067], [0081]: determining whether to add any additional inventories or tasks to a user role), and
adjusting the set of access rights assigned to the user, by removing at least some access rights related to those predefined actions of the set of predefined actions not being performed (note para. [0059], [0067], [0080] – [0081]: granting additional inventories or tasks based on updated user roles; deleting/ modifying user roles)
wherein the step of assigning a set of access rights to the user comprises categorising the user to a predefined user profile (note para. [0059], [0067]: user role), and the method further comprises the steps of:
logging actions performed by users categorised to a certain user profile with regard to the renewable power generating system (note para. [0055]: activity logging file) and comparing the performed actions to the set of predefined actions related to the user profile (note para. [0058], [0067], [0081]: determining whether to add any additional inventories or tasks to a user role),
K. S. et al. fails to teach expressly comparing the performed actions to the set of predefined actions related to the set of access rights; and in the case that the comparison reveals discrepancies between the performed actions and the set of predefined actions related to the set of access rights, automatically adjusting the set of access rights assigned to the user; and in the case that the comparison reveals discrepancies between the performed actions and the set of predefined actions related to the user profile, automatically adjusting the set of access rights related to the user profile, by removing at least some access rights related to predefined actions not being performed, thereby automatically adjust the user rights assigned to all users being categorised to the user profile.
However, LUU et al. teaches comparing the performed actions to the set of predefined actions related to the set of access rights (note para. [0037], [0040]: comparison to determine user’s access level); in the case that the comparison reveals discrepancies between the performed actions and the set of predefined actions related to the set of access rights, automatically adjusting the set of access rights assigned to the user (note para. [0037], [0041]: temporarily adjusting employee access level); and in the case that the comparison reveals discrepancies between the performed actions and the set of predefined actions related to the user profile (note para. [0018], [0027], [0036], [0040]: analyzing/ reviewing access rights based on user’s profile/ position information), automatically adjusting the set of access rights related to the user profile, by removing at least some access rights related to predefined actions not being performed, thereby automatically adjust the user rights assigned to all users being categorised to the user profile (note para. [0019], [0040] – [0041]: users being categorized based on profile, position/ role information; removing/ disabling access rights based on user’s profile and position/ role information)
LUU et al. and K. S. et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of dynamically managing access/ privilege level for a user/ employee in an organization. Therefore, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify K. S. et al. method to further include the features of comparing the performed actions to the set of predefined actions related to the set of access rights; and in the case that the comparison reveals discrepancies between the performed actions and the set of predefined actions related to the set of access rights; and automatically adjusting the set of access rights related to the user profile, by removing at least some access rights related to predefined actions not being performed, thereby automatically adjust the user rights assigned to all users being categorised to the user profile in order to provide an administrator with a dynamic and secure mechanism for controlling the access rights/ levels utilizing employee’s position/ profile and time constraint data (note LUU et al., para. [0004] – [0005], [0018])
Regarding claim 2, K. S. et al. teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein automatically adjusting the set of access rights assigned to the user comprises reducing the set of predefined actions with regard to the renewable power generating system, which the user is permitted to perform (note para. [0080]: some of the existing user roles may be deleted from the plurality of existing user roles)
Regarding claim 3, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, furthermore, K. S. et al. teaches the method further comprising, upon request, granting the user permission to performing additional actions with regard to the renewable power generating system (note para. [0080] – [0081]: granting additional inventories or tasks based on updated user roles)
K. S. et al. fails to teach expressly upon request, temporarily granting the user permission to performing additional actions.
However, LUU et al. teaches upon request, temporarily granting the user permission to performing additional actions (note para. [0019], [0041]: temporarily adjusting access rights to perform additional tasks)
Regarding claim 4, K. S. et al. teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein granting the user permission to performing additional actions with regard to the renewable power generating system is subject toauthentication of the user (note para. [0050], [0059], [0077]: authentication for each role)
K. S. et al. fails to teach expressly temporarily granting the user permission to performing additional actions is subject to separate authentication of the user.
However, LUU et al. teaches temporarily granting the user permission to performing additional actions is subject to separate authentication of the user (note para. [0019], [0040]: time/ rule based reauthentication once certain time is elapsed or user has a new role)
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, furthermore, LUU et al teaches the method wherein assigning a set of access rights to the user comprises categorizing the user to a predefined user profile, and wherein automatically adjusting the set of access rights assigned to the user comprises categorizing the user to another predefined user profile (note para. [0019], [0040] – [0041]: users being categorized based on profile, position/ role information; removing/ disabling access rights based on user’s profile and position/ role information)
Regarding claim 7, K. S. et al teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the renewable energy generating system is a wind turbine or a wind power plant (note para. [0004], [0031]: wind power plant)
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K. S. et al. in view of LUU et al. further in view of US 10,754,506 B1 (hereinafter Moyal et al.)
Regarding claim 8, Modified LUU et al. -K. S. et al method fails to teach expressly the method according to claim 1, wherein logging actions performed by the user comprises performing artificial intelligence (AI) driven analysis on logged data.
However, Moyal et al. teaches the method wherein logging actions performed by the user comprises performing artificial intelligence (AI) driven analysis on logged data (note column 19, lines 8-28, column 23, line 46 -60: using machine leaning process for classifying/ analyzing patterns, activity data etc.)
Moyal et al. and K. S. et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of controlling access/ privileges of a user role in a network environment. Therefore, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to further modify Kurmi-K. S. et al. method to include the features of wherein logging actions performed by the user comprises performing artificial intelligence (AI) driven analysis on logged data in order to provide users with an improved mechanism for accurately classifying logged/ pattern data associated a particular user or role utilizing a machine learning or artificial intelligence model (note Moyal et al., column 18, lines 18-57)
Regarding claim 9, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 8, furthermore, Moyal et al. teaches the method wherein the AI driven analysis comprises identifying patterns in the actions performed by the user, and comparing the identified patterns to expected behaviour of a user requiring the full set of assigned access rights (note column 19, lines 8-28, column 23, line 46 -60: using machine leaning process for classifying/ analyzing patterns, activity data etc. associated with a particular role/ user)
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire in 3 (Three) months and 0 (Zero) days from the mailing date of this letter. Failure to respond within the period for response will result in ABANDOMENT of the application (see 35 U.S.C 133, M.P.E.P 710.02(b)). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANTO ABEDIN whose telephone number is 571-272-3551. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jung (Jay) Kim, can be reached on 571-272-3804. The RightFax number for faxing directly to the examiner is 571-273-3551.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHANTO ABEDIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights