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
Currently pending claims are 1 – 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to instant claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendment – please see the following section for the detail of rationale to make the corresponding prior-art(s) rejections as set forth below.
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 exclaimed 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 – 7, 11 – 16 & 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kukreja et al. (U.S. Patent 11,102,214), in view of Hunt et al. (U.S. Patent 9,210,276).
As per claim 1, 11 & 19, Kukreja teaches a method of managing a client asset in a software as a service (SaaS) platform (Kukreja: FIG. 2 & 3 and Col. 9 Line 37 – 40 and Col. 2 Line 23 – 36: providing cloud-based directory services and managing an access to a shared directory of client resources in an a SaaS platform), comprising:
configuring a plurality of client accounts in a first hierarchy of accounts, the plurality of client accounts comprising a first client account and a second client account ranked in the first hierarchy of accounts (Kukreja: see above & Col. 11 Line 26 – 36: a plurality of hierarchical client accounts are configured with an organizational criterion associated with directory sharing, wherein (a) a directory access can be shared with an entire organizational structure or branch of an organizational structure (i.e. as a sub-hierarchy) (Kukreja: Col. 11 Line 26 – 30), and (b) a sharing between an organization account and a second account (as a branch account ranked below an organization account) can be performed to access the service directory to be shared according to an established trust relationship);
receiving, via a first application programming interface (API) call associated with the first client account of the SaaS platform, a first request to establish a trusted relationship with the second client account of the SaaS platform to share the client asset associated with the first client account (Kukreja: see above, FIG. 5 & Col. 13 Line 13 – 15, Col. 7 Line 14 – 27 and Col. 8 Line 8 – 19: receiving a request to establish the trust relationship associated with the sharing criteria (conditions), via an API call, between the 1st and 2nd client accounts such as access restriction or revocation for a 2nd client account with which a service directory is shared (e.g. an email service to access email, contacts, calendar and etc.);
determining that the first request satisfies one or more conditions related to the first hierarchy of accounts and the trusted relationship (Kukreja: see above & Col. 11 Line 26 – 36: see the comment of the 1st claim element);
receiving, via a second API call associated with the second client account, a second request to perform a communication operation based on the client asset associated with the first client account (Kukreja: see above & Col. 11 Line 26 – 36: see the comment of the 1st & 2nd claim element); and
performing the communication operation on behalf of the second client account using the client asset associated with the first client account and based on an indication of the trusted relationship between the first client account and the second client account (Kukreja: see above & Col. 11 Line 30 – 36).
However, Kukreja does not disclose expressly wherein performing the communication operation comprises causing communication data to be transmitted to a recipient device associated with a telephone number, the recipient device associated with a party external to the SaaS platform.
Hunt (& Kukreja) teaches wherein performing the communication operation comprises causing communication data to be transmitted to a recipient device associated with a telephone number, the recipient device associated with a party external to the SaaS platform (Kukreja: see above) || (Hunt: FIG. 2 & Col. 6 Line 26 – 32 / Line 9 – 17: allowing (IP) data communication over (voice) telephone number connections (i.e. a VoIP services) to an external recipient device (e.g. a vendor device) associated with a multi-tenant SaaS platform through a use of an API interface).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to propose the modification of selecting authentication policy specifying a type of locator to be used because Hunt teaches to alternatively, effectively and securely allow (IP) data communication over (voice) telephone number connections (i.e. a VoIP services) to an external recipient device (e.g. a vendor device) associated with a multi-tenant SaaS platform through a use of an API interface (see above) within the Kukreja’s system of providing cloud based directory services and managing an access to a shared directory of client resources in an a SaaS platform among a plurality of users / clients (see above).
As per claim 2 & 12, Kukreja as modified teaches wherein the plurality of client accounts subscribe to a communication service provided by the SaaS platform (Kukreja: FIG. 2 & 3 and Col. 9 Line 37 – 40 and Col. 2 Line 23 – 36: providing a shared directory service of client resources within a cloud-based directory services and managing resource access from a plurality of client accounts subscribed to the SaaS platform).
As per claim 3, 13 & 20, Kukreja as modified teaches wherein the communication service comprises one or more of a messaging service for text messages or a voice service for voice calls (Kukreja: see above & Col. 7 Line 63 – Col. 8 Line 16: e.g. email messaging directory service).
As per claim 4 & 14, Kukreja as modified teaches responsive to determining that the first request satisfies the one or more conditions related to the first hierarchy of accounts and the trusted relationship, storing the indication of the trusted relationship between the first client account and the second client account (Kukreja: see above & Col. 11 Line 31 – 36: based on an indication of the trusted relationship without user input (i.e. based on an indication such as a flag)).
As per claim 5 & 15, Kukreja as modified teaches wherein the first client account comprises an organization account and the second client account comprise a primary account ranked below the organization account in the first hierarchy of accounts (Kukreja: see above & Col. 11 Line 26 – 36: (a) a plurality of hierarchical client accounts are configured with an organizational criterion associated with directory sharing, wherein (b) a sharing between an organization account and a second account (as a branch account ranked below an organization account) can be performed to access the service directory to be shared according to a trust relationship established within the organization).
As per claim 6 & 16, Kukreja as modified teaches determining whether the first client account and the second client account are within a same hierarchy of accounts, wherein the one or more conditions are satisfied responsive to determining that the first client account and the second client account are within the same hierarchy of accounts (Kukreja: see above & Col. 11 Line 26 – 30: an organizational sharing criterion, a directory access can be shared between the client accounts with an entire organizational structure – i.e. a “same” hierarchy of accounts).
As per claim 7, Kukreja as modified teaches responsive to determining that the first client account is within the same hierarchy of accounts, determining whether the first client account is ranked above the second client account in the first hierarchy of accounts, wherein the one or more conditions are satisfied responsive to determining that the first client account is ranked above the second client account in the first hierarchy of accounts (Kukreja: see above & Col. 11 Line 26 – 36: (a) an organizational sharing criterion, a directory access can be shared between the client accounts of an organizational structure or a branch of an organizational structure, and (b) determining whether a condition is satisfied such as a 1st account and a 2nd account with respective to an organization or a branch of an organization – i.e. ranked above / below within the hierarchy of accounts).
Claims 9, 10, 18 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kukreja et al. (U.S. Patent 11,102,214), in view of Chauhan et al. (U.S. Patent 2020/0104478).
As per claim 9 & 18, Chauhan (& Kukreja as modified) teaches performing a text messaging operation to send one or more text messages based on the client asset comprising a third-party authorization token that authorizes using a telecommunication network of a third-party service provider to send the one or more text messages (Kukreja: see above & Col. 7 Line 63 – Col. 8 Line 16: e.g. email messaging directory service) || (Chauhan: Para [0004]: providing an authentication token by an application server (as a 3rd-party service provider) to a user / client for enabling SaaS data to be interacted for accessing secure data).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to propose the modification of selecting authentication policy specifying a type of locator to be used because Chauhan teaches to alternatively, effectively and securely provide an authentication token by a SaaS service platform to a user / client for enabling SaaS data to be interacted for accessing secure data (see above) within the Kukreja’s system of providing cloud based directory services and managing an access to a shared directory of client resources in an a SaaS platform among a plurality of users / clients (see above).
As per claim 10, Chauhan (& Kukreja as modified) teaches wherein the trusted relationship enables sharing of the client asset comprising a first-party authorization token that is provided by the SaaS platform and that authorizes the first client account to use a communication service provided by the SaaS platform (Kukreja: see above & Col. 11 Line 26 – 36, Col. 9 Line 37 – 40 and Col. 2 Line 23 – 36: a sharing between a plurality of accounts can be performed to access the service directory to be shared according to an established trust relationship) || (Chauhan: Para [0004]: providing an authentication token by a SaaS service platform to a user / client for enabling SaaS data to be interacted for accessing secure data). See the same rationale of combination applied herein as above in rejecting the claim 9.
As per claim 21, Chauhan (& Kukreja as modified) teaches wherein a client device of the second client account instructs the SaaS platform to cause the communication data to be transmitted to the recipient device associated with the telephone number corresponding to a telecommunication network based on the client asset comprising a third-party authorization token shared by the first client account (Kukreja: see above & Col. 11 Line 26 – 36, Col. 9 Line 37 – 40 and Col. 2 Line 23 – 36: a sharing between a plurality of accounts can be performed to access the service directory to be shared according to an established trust relationship) || (Hunt: see above) || (Chauhan: Para [0004]: providing an authentication token by a SaaS service platform to a user / client for enabling SaaS data to be interacted for accessing secure data). See the same rationale of combination applied herein as above in rejecting the claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 & 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONGBIT CHAI whose telephone number is (571)272-3788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Lynn D. Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
---------------------------------------------------
/Longbit Chai/
Longbit Chai E.E. Ph.D.
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
No. #2588 – 2026 ---------------------------------------------------