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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered, but cannot be held as persuasive. On page 15, Applicant notes the pending Double Patenting rejection. While updated responsive to the 7/2/2026 claim amendments, the rejection remains pending. After summarizing cited prior art references on page 16, Applicant argues that the amended “affinity-group-based” language now present in claims 1, 8, and 15 overcomes the previously presented rejections made based on the combined teachings of Talbert in view of Yuan and Staiman. Applicant argues on page 17 that: “Talbert's auto-reconciliation process is strictly discrepancy-driven. Talbert explicitly teaches modifying a baseline record solely to cure a discrepancy . . .”.
Applicant continues to address the amended claim language on page 17 and argues that:
“Talbert's auto-reconciliation process is strictly discrepancy-driven. Talbert explicitly teaches modifying a baseline record solely to cure a discrepancy . . .”
In response, the Examiner notes that the source or cause of the claimed “first data object modification” is not positively recited by the argued pending claims. Thus whether or not Talbert’s disclosed reconciliation process is “strictly discrepancy-driven” appears to have little impact on whether or not Talbert anticipates the pending claim language. Whether or not the modification in Talbert is made “solely to cure a discrepancy” does not impact whether Talbert anticipates the relied upon claim language. Regardless of what association Talbert’s teachings may or may not have regarding to “cure a discrepancy”, Talbert in [35-36] discusses updating “entitlements such as the channels included in a subscription”. This update in entitlements is applicable to the users in the group of subscribers that receive the particular channel entitlement, and thus a modification to this entitlement is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “affinity-group-based” modification. In addition to the teachings of Talbert, the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 15 also relies on what the teachings further in view of Yuan and Staiman would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Staiman, for example, suggests modifying an entitlement referencing a group (e.g., a security group) including adding a new member to a group. As a result of the entitlement change and in order to “realize the policy intent of the entitlement”, membership in the group is changed. Given that the group of Staiman (e.g., the security group discussed in col. 7 line 60 – col. 8 line 8) is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “affinity group”, a modification that results in a change to membership in this group (i.e., an entitlement change) thus meets the corresponding broadest reasonable interpretation of an “affinity-group-based” modification. While the rejections have been updated to address the newly amended claim, language, Talbert in view of Yuan and Staiman continue fully anticipate the amended claim language and thus remain relied upon in the rejections presented below. In order to claim beyond the relied upon prior art combination, Applicant is encouraged to more precisely claim the contents or scope of the recited “data object”, “category information”, “entitlement”, and “affinity group”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. US-12244476-B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each element of the above pending claims is anticipated by a corresponding element in a patented claim, as illustrated below.
Pending claim 1
An apparatus, comprising: a memory configured to store: one or more data exchange operations configured to indicate one or more data objects to be exchanged with at least one user equipment; and one or more reporting operations configured to generate one or more data object modifications comprising modifications to the one or more data objects to be exchanged with the at least one user equipment; and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory, and configured to:
determine a first user equipment that
matches a first plurality of entitlements in a service directory, the first plurality of
entitlements indicating one or more connectivity allowances between the first user equipment and one or more resources in a wireless communication network;
generate first data object information for a first plurality of data objects associated
with the first user equipment,
the first data object information comprising baseline values for each of the first plurality of entitlements associated with the first user equipment;
obtain a first category information associated with the first user equipment, the first category information indicating that the first user equipment is part of a first affinity group;
determine a first data object modification for a first baseline value in the first data object information corresponding to a first entitlement of the first plurality of entitlements based at least in part upon the first category information;
wherein the first data object modification is an affinity-group-based data object modification
generate a first report comprising the first plurality of entitlements and the first data object modification; and transmit the first report to the first user equipment.
Patented claim 1
An apparatus, comprising: a memory configured to store: one or more data exchange operations configured to indicate one or more data objects to be exchanged with at least one user equipment; and one or more reporting operations configured to generate one or more data object modifications comprising modifications to the one or more data objects to be exchanged with the at least one user equipment;
a data exchange system comprising
at least one first processor communicatively coupled to the memory, and configured to:
identify a first user equipment configured to receive a first report;
match the first user equipment to a first plurality of entitlements in a service directory, the first plurality of entitlements indicating one or more connectivity allowances between the first user equipment and one or more resources in a wireless communication network; and generate first report information comprising first data object information for a first plurality of data objects associated
with the first user equipment,
the first data object information comprising baseline values for each of the first plurality of entitlements associated with the first user equipment; and
a reporting system comprising at least one second processor, communicatively coupled to the data exchange system, and configured to:
obtain a first category information associated with the first user equipment, the first category information indicating that the first user equipment is part of a first affinity group;
receive the first report information from the data exchange system; in response to receiving the first report information from the data exchange system,
determine a first data object modification for a first baseline value in the first data object information corresponding to a first entitlement of the first plurality of entitlements based at least in part upon the first category information;
Patented claim 2
. . . obtain a second category information . . . indicating that the second user . . . is part of a second affinity group . . .
determine a . . . data object modification . . . based at least in part upon the second category information;
Patented claim 1
generate the first report comprising the first plurality of entitlements and the first data object modification; and
transmit the first report to the first user equipment.
Pending claim 2
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the at least one processor is further configured to: determine
a second user equipment that matches a
second plurality of entitlements in the service directory, the second plurality of entitlements indicating second data object information for a second data object associated with the second user equipment;
obtain a second category information associated with the second user equipment, the second category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a second affinity group; obtain a third category information associated with the second user equipment, the third category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a third affinity group;
determine a second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second category information;
determine a third data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the third category information;
generate a second report comprising the second plurality of entitlements, the second data object modification, and the third data object modification; and
transmit the second report to the second user equipment.
Pending claim 2
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the at least one first processor is further configured to:
identify
a second user equipment configured to receive a second report; and
match the second user equipment to a second plurality of entitlements in the service directory, the second plurality of entitlements indicating second data object information for a second data object associated with the second user equipment; and the at least one second processor is further configured to: obtain a second category information associated with the second user equipment, the second category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a second affinity group; obtain a third category information associated with the second user equipment, the third category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a third affinity group; receive the second data object information from the data exchange system; determine a second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second category information; determine a third data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the third category information; generate the second report comprising the second plurality of entitlements, the second data object modification, and the third data object modification; and transmit the second report to the second user equipment.
Pending claim 3
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a second user equipment that
matches a second plurality of entitlements in the
service directory, the second plurality of entitlements indicating second data object information for a second data object associated with the second user equipment;
obtain a second category information associated with the second user equipment, the second category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a second affinity group;
obtain a first tier information associated with the second user equipment, the first tier information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a predefined subsection of the second affinity group;
determine a second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second category information;
update the second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the first tier information;
in response to updating the second data object modification, generate a second report comprising the second plurality of entitlements and the second data object modification; and
transmit the second report to the second user equipment.
Patented claim 3
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the at least one first processor is further configured to: identify a second user equipment configured to receive a second report; and
match the second user equipment to a second plurality of entitlements in the
service directory, the second plurality of entitlements indicating second data object information for a second data object associated with the second user equipment; and
the at least one second processor is further configured to:
obtain a second category information associated with the second user equipment, the second category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a second affinity group;
obtain a first tier information associated with the second user equipment, the first tier information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a predefined subsection of the second affinity group; receive the second data object information from the data exchange system;
determine a second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second category information;
update the second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the first tier information;
in response to updating the second data object modification, generate the second report comprising the second plurality of entitlements and the second data object modification; and
transmit the second report to the second user equipment.
Pending claim 4
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a second user equipment that matches a
second plurality of entitlements in the service directory, the second plurality of entitlements indicating second data object information for a second data object associated with the second user equipment;
obtain a second category information associated with the second user equipment, the second category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a second affinity group;
obtain a first tier information associated with the second user equipment, the first tier information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a predefined subsection of the second affinity group; obtain a third category information associated with the second user equipment, the third category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a third affinity group;
obtain a second tier information associated with the second user equipment, the second tier information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a predefined subsection of the third affinity group;
determine a second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second category information;
update the second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the first tier information;
determine a third data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the third category information;
update the third data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second tier information;
in response to updating the second data object modification and updating the third data object modification, generate a second report comprising the second plurality of entitlements, the second data object modification, and the third data object modification; and
transmit the second report to the second user equipment.
Patented claim 4
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the at least one first processor is further configured to: identify a second user equipment configured to receive a second report; and
match the second user equipment to a second plurality of entitlements in the service directory, the second plurality of entitlements indicating second data object information for a second data object associated with the second user equipment; and
the at least one second processor is further configured to:
obtain a second category information associated with the second user equipment, the second category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a second affinity group;
obtain a first tier information associated with the second user equipment, the first tier information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a predefined subsection of the second affinity group: obtain a third category information associated with the second user equipment, the third category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a third affinity group;
obtain a second tier information associated with the second user equipment, the second tier information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a predefined subsection of the third affinity group;
receive the second data object information from the data exchange system;
determine a second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second category information;
update the second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the first tier information:
determine a third data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the third category information;
update the third data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second tier information;
in response to updating the second data object modification and updating the third data object modification, generate the second report comprising the second plurality of entitlements, the second data object modification, and the third data object modification; and
transmit the second report to the second user equipment.
Pending claim 5
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the first data object information comprises a cost associated with an entitlement of the first plurality of entitlements; and
the first data object modification comprises a reduction to the cost associated with the entitlement.
Patented claim 5
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the first data object information comprises a cost associated with an entitlement of the first plurality of entitlements; and
the first data object modification comprises a reduction to the cost associated with the entitlement.
Pending claim 6
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a
second user equipment to a second plurality of entitlements in the service directory, the second plurality of entitlements indicating second data object information for a second data object associated with the second user equipment;
obtain a second category information associated with the second user equipment, the second category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a second affinity group;
determine a second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second category information, the second data object modification comprising a first value;
obtain an override command associated with the second user equipment, the override command indicating a third data object modification comprising a second value;
determine whether the first value comprised by the second data object modification is less than the second value comprised by the third data object modification;
in response to determining that the first value comprised by the second data object modification is less than the second value comprised by the third data object modification, generate a second report comprising the second plurality of entitlements and the third data object modification; and
transmit the second report to the second user equipment.
Patented claim 6
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the at least one first processor is further configured to:
identify a second user equipment configured to receive a second report; and
match the
second user equipment to a second plurality of entitlements in the service directory, the second plurality of entitlements indicating second data object information for a second data object associated with the second user equipment; and
the at least one second processor is further configured to:
obtain a second category information associated with the second user equipment, the second category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a second affinity group;
receive the second data object information from the data exchange system;
determine a second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second category information, the second data object modification comprising a first value;
obtain an override command associated with the second user equipment, the override command indicating a third data object modification comprising a second value:
determine whether the first value comprised by the second data object modification is less than the second value comprised by the third data object modification;
in response to determining that the first value comprised by the second data object modification is less than the second value comprised by the third data object modification, generate the second report comprising the second plurality of entitlements and the third data object modification; and
transmit the second report to the second user equipment.
Pending claim 7
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first affinity group comprises a plurality of user equipment associated with a predefined organization.
Patented claim 7
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first affinity group comprises a plurality of user equipment associated with a predefined organization.
Regarding pending claim 8, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 8 in the same manner pending claim 1 is anticipated by patented claim 1.
Regarding pending claim 9, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 9 in the same manner pending claim 2 is anticipated by patented claim 2.
Regarding pending claim 10, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 10 in the same manner pending claim 3 is anticipated by patented claim 3.
Regarding pending claim 11, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 11 in the same manner pending claim 4 is anticipated by patented claim 4.
Regarding pending claim 12, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 12 in the same manner pending claim 5 is anticipated by patented claim 5.
Regarding pending claim 13, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 13 in the same manner pending claim 6 is anticipated by patented claim 6.
Regarding pending claim 14, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 14 in the same manner pending claim 7 is anticipated by patented claim 7.
Regarding pending claim 15, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 15 in the same manner pending claim 1 is anticipated by patented claim 1.
Regarding pending claim 16, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 16 in the same manner pending claim 2 is anticipated by patented claim 2.
Regarding pending claim 17, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 17 in the same manner pending claim 3 is anticipated by patented claim 3.
Regarding pending claim 18, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 18 in the same manner pending claim 4 is anticipated by patented claim 4.
Regarding pending claim 19, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 19 in the same manner pending claim 5 is anticipated by patented claim 5.
Regarding pending claim 20, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 20 in the same manner pending claim 6 is anticipated by patented claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 7 – 9, and 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talbert (US-20120151512-A1) in view of Yuan (US-20220239704-A1) and Staiman (US-8490152-B2)
Regarding claim 1, Talbert shows: An apparatus, comprising:
a memory configured to store (Fig. 1 item 110):
one or more data exchange operations configured to indicate one or more data objects service subscriptions such as “baseline records”; [33]to be exchanged (the subscription baseline records delivered when, e.g., subscriptions change, [36]) with at least one user equipment (e.g., a user’s STB); and
one or more reporting operations configured to generate one or more data object modifications comprising modifications to the one or more data objects to be exchanged with the at least one user equipment ([33-34,37,64] discussing update of baseline subscription records, performed as needed to ensure accurate information at the STB and to ensure the user is able to access their subscribed-to services); and
at least one processor ([30]) communicatively coupled to the memory, and configured to:
generate ([34]) first data object information for a first plurality of data objects associated with the first user equipment, the first data object ([19,34], e.g., the baseline record) information comprising baseline values for each of the first plurality of entitlements associated with the first user equipment (Abstract, [1] discussing where the baseline record of subscription entitlements ([2,12-13,35]) is delivered and stored in a user’s STB);
obtain a first category information associated with the first user equipment, the first category information indicating that the first user equipment is part of a first affinity group ([34] discussing a determination made as to whether a user is or is not part of a particular group of subscribers);
determine a first data object modification for a first baseline value in the first data object information corresponding to a first entitlement of the first plurality of entitlements based at least in part upon the first category information ([12-14] discussing auto-reconciliation of entitlements, based on, e.g., “golden source records” [21], or changes to subscriptions [36]), wherein the first data object modification is an affinity-group-based data object modification ([35-36] discusses updating “entitlements such as the channels included in a subscription”. This update in entitlements is applicable to the users in the group of subscribers that receive the particular channel entitlement (representing the claimed “affinity group”), and thus a modification to this entitlement is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “affinity-group-based” modification). Talbert does not show to: determine a first user equipment that matches a first plurality of entitlements in a service directory, the first plurality of entitlements indicating one or more connectivity allowances between the first user equipment and one or more resources in a wireless communication network.
Yuan shows to: determine a first user equipment that matches a first plurality of entitlements ([33] discussing “information . . . indicating that . . . UE are authorized to access the service”) in a service directory ([34] discussing “subscription data”), the first plurality of entitlements indicating one or more connectivity allowances between the first user equipment and one or more resources in a wireless communication network ([34] discussing a determination that a UE is authorized to make a voice call to a particular network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the entitlement management system of Talbert with the entitlement matching and connectivity considerations of Yuan in order to better control the behavior of the multifunction communication and consumption devices common to the deployment environments of Talbert and Yuan, thus better ensuring user’s can consume subscribed-to services but not utilize functionality for which they do not pay and subscribe to.
The above combination does not show to: generate a first report comprising the first plurality of entitlements and the first data object modification; and
transmit the first report to the first user equipment. Staiman shows to: generate the first report comprising the first plurality of entitlements (col. 3 lines 20-26 and lines 45-47, col. 6 lines 17-31) and the first data object modification (col. 9 lines 30-50)); and transmit the first report to the first recipient (col. 9 lines 6-7; note that Staiman additionally provides further discussion regarding determination of a modification corresponding to an entitlement, wherein the modification is an affinity-group-based modification via discussion regarding adding a new member to a group. As a result of the entitlement change and in order to “realize the policy intent of the entitlement”, membership in the group is changed. Given that the group of Staiman (e.g., the security group discussed in col. 7 line 60 – col. 8 line 8) is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “affinity group”, a modification that results in a change to membership in this group (i.e., an entitlement change) meets the corresponding broadest reasonable interpretation of an “affinity-group-based” modification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the entitlement management system of the above combination with the reports use and entitlement management of Staiman in order to ensure entitlement usage records are accurately maintained, facilitating streamlined review of resource use as well as enabling simplified auditing and verification of proper subscription enforcement.
Regarding claim 2, the above combination further shows the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a second user equipment (Yuan, Fig. 1A showing UE 105-1 and UE 105-2) that matches a second plurality of entitlements in the service directory (Yuan, [34]), the second plurality of entitlements indicating second data object information for a second data object associated with the second user equipment (Staiman, col. 9 lines 38-50, col. 2 lines 27-59, col. 5 lines 2 – 12, col. 8 lines 52-65, discussing that the system operates in an environment with multiple users and Talbert, [15] discussing one user with a subscription that a second (friend) user does not share);
obtain a second category information associated with the second user equipment, the second category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a second affinity group (Yuan, Fig. 1A showing UE 105-1 and UE 105-2, showing multiple UE and Talbert, [15] discussing multiple users with their own particular subscription entitlement categories);
obtain a third category information associated with the second user equipment, the third category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a third affinity group (Staiman, col. 7 lines 35 – 44, col. 8 lines 1-8 and col. 9 line 55 – col. 10 line 14, suggesting multiple users in multiple groups and multiple entitlements, which suggests at least a third group and category);
determine a second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second category information (Staiman, col. 7 lines 35 – 44, col. 8 lines 1-8 and col. 9 line 55 – col. 10 line 14; as noted above users being present in multiple affinity groups each with particular entitlements suggests the second recipient/category/affinity grouping claimed; group membership and changes thereto result in modifications to the resources stored in the management system, as discussed in col. 2 lines 45-67);
determine a third data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the third category information (Staiman, col. 2 lines 46-51, col. 7 lines 25-35, col. 8 lines 19-34, discussing regular and repeated object modifications for multiple objects across multiple categories and groups);
generate the second report comprising the second plurality of entitlements (Staiman, col. 3 lines 20-26 and lines 45-47, col. 6 lines 17-31), the second data object modification, and the third data object modification (Staiman, col. 9 lines 30-50); and transmit the second report to the second recipient (Staiman, col. 9 lines 6-7, and as noted above, the suggested multiple reports sent to a multi-user system suggests at least a second report sent to a second recipient).
Regarding claim 7, the above combination further shows wherein the first affinity group comprises a plurality of user equipment associated with a predefined organization (Staiman, col. 1 lines 32 – 40, col. 2 line 60 discussing where a group has a plurality of members, col. 6 lines 18 – 34 discussing particular organizations with particular rules; the organization would be “pre-defined” with respect to when, e.g., an audit is subsequently run to check for compliance).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the limitations of said claim are addressed in claim 1.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the limitations of said claim are addressed in claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of said claim are addressed in claim 7.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talbert in view of Yuan and Staiman as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Karppanen (US-11165785-B1).
Regarding claim 3, the above combination shows wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a second user equipment that matches a second plurality of entitlements in the service directory, the second plurality of entitlements indicating second data object information for a second data object associated with the second user equipment (Yuan, Fig. 1A showing UE 105-1 and UE 105-2, showing multiple UE and Talbert, [15] discussing multiple users with their own particular subscription entitlement categories); obtain a second category information associated with the second user equipment, the second category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a second affinity group (Yuan, Fig. 1A showing UE 105-1 and UE 105-2, showing multiple UE and Talbert, [15] discussing multiple users with their own particular subscription entitlement categories; as Yuan discusses in [33-34], and Talbert in [15], different UE can be part of distinct subscription affinity groups);
determine a second data object modification (Staiman, col. 2 lines 46-51) for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second category information (Staiman, col. 7 lines 25-35 and col. 8 lines 14-34 discussing where membership, e.g., expires or is deleted due to a property duration; as col. 7 line 60 – col. 8 line 8 and col. 8 lines 55 – 65 suggests, multiple modifications can be made and occur regularly; e.g., creating of a resource, along with regular and scheduled updating/modifying of the resource such as the renewal discussed in col. 7 lines 25-35); in response to updating the second data object modification, generate a second report comprising the second plurality of entitlements and the second data object modification; and transmit the second report to the second user equipment (Staiman, col. 7 lines 25 – 45, col. 8 lines 50 – 54, col. 9 lines 6-7 and lines 41 - 55);
The above combination does not show obtain a first tier information associated with the second recipient, the first tier information indicating that the second recipient is part of a predefined subsection of the second affinity group; and update the second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the first tier information. Karppanen shows to: obtain a first tier information associated with the second recipient, the first tier information indicating that the second recipient is part of a predefined subsection of the second affinity group (col. 5 lines 52-67, col. 8 lines 15-21 and col. 11 lines 15-31 discussing membership in groups and subgroups); and update the second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the first tier information (col. 7 lines 1-39, col. 8 lines 45-47 and lines 60-65 discussing where directory objects change as user attributes change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the entitlement management system of the above combination with user group rules and rule management of Karppanen in order to facilitate simplified and improved management of the groups of users subject to the entitlements via Karppanen improved administration and rule capabilities.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the limitations of said claim are addressed in claim 3.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talbert in view of Yuan and Staiman as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hayes (US-6105063-A).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination shows wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a second user equipment that matches a second plurality of entitlements in the service directory, the second plurality of entitlements indicating second data object information for a second data object associated with the second user equipment (Yuan, Fig. 1A showing UE 105-1 and UE 105-2, showing multiple UE and Talbert, [15] discussing multiple users with their own particular subscription entitlement categories); obtain a second category information associated with the second user equipment, the second category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a second affinity group (Yuan, Fig. 1A showing UE 105-1 and UE 105-2, showing multiple UE and Talbert, [15] discussing multiple users with their own particular subscription entitlement categories; as Yuan discusses in [33-34], and Talbert in [15], different UE can be part of distinct subscription affinity groups); obtain a third category information associated with the second user equipment, the third category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a third affinity group (Staiman, col. 7 lines 35 – 44, col. 8 lines 1-8 and col. 9 line 52 – col. 10 line 14 discussing where the system operates in an environment with multiple users and multiple report recipients, and suggesting where a single user can have membership in multiple entitlement groups, e.g., being both an employee, an executive, and being at the VP-level); determine a second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second category information (Staiman, col. 7 lines 35 – 44, col. 8 lines 1-8 and col. 9 line 55 – col. 10 line 14; as col. 7 lines 28-35 and col. 7 line 60 – col. 8 line 8 discusses, regular maintenance and updates are performed on disclosed grouping structure and properties in the resource management system); in response to updating the second data object modification and updating the third data object modification, generate a second report (Staiman, col. 9 lines 38-50, col. 2 lines 27-59, col. 5 lines 2 – 12, col. 8 lines 52-65, discussing that the system operates in an environment with multiple users and suggests that multiple reports are generated over periods of time) comprising the second plurality of entitlements, the second data object modification, and the third data object modification; and transmit the second report to the second user equipment (Staiman, col. 7 lines 25 – 45, col. 8 lines 50 – 54, col. 9 lines 6-7 and lines 41 – 55).
The above combination, while showing the recipients (e.g., Staiman, col. 8 lines 51-64, col. 9 lines 5-6 and lines 41-55, discussing multiple workflows, each workflow capable of triggering report generation and a corresponding notification to a requestor, user, or group owner) and showing to: update the second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon information (Staiman, col. 9 lines 38-50, col. 2 lines 27-59, col. 5 lines 2 – 12, col. 8 lines 52-65, discussing that the system operates in an environment with multiple users and suggests that multiple reports are generated over periods of time); update the third data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon information (Staiman, col. 9 lines 38-50, col. 2 lines 27-59, col. 5 lines 2 – 12, col. 8 lines 52-65, discussing that the system operates in an environment with multiple users and suggests that multiple reports are generated over periods of time), does not show to: obtain a first tier information associated with a second user, the first tier information indicating that the second user is part of a predefined subsection of the second affinity group; obtain a second tier information associated with the second user, the second tier information indicating that the second user is part of a predefined subsection of the third affinity group; and performing actions based on the varies tier and grouping information. Hayes shows to: obtain a first tier information associated with a second user, the first tier information indicating that the second user is part of a predefined subsection of the second affinity group (Fig. 4, showing a first affinity group, e.g., “AllUsers”, a second group, e.g., “GroupX” and a third, “GroupY”; discussed in col. 4 lines 28-50); obtain a second tier information associated with the second user, the second tier information indicating that the second user is part of a predefined subsection of the third affinity group (Fig. 4, where the affinity groups are effectively arranged in tiers starting with AllUsers, the Group X and Y, etc., (see also Fig. 16 and 18 showing the tiered hierarchies on the far left, e.g., “Administrators” and “IBM” being at an equal tier, where “Software” is a tier under “IBM”) and the 3rd group “GroupY” has the subsection “GroupY1”; see also the discussion in col. 9 lines 1-25); and performing actions based on the varies tier and grouping information (such as profile management discussed in col. 4 lines 11 – 67 and the priority determinations made using the profiles discussed in col. 9 lines 1-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the entitlement management system of Staiman with hierarchical administration techniques of Hayes in order to provide for improved descriptive methodologies, thus facilitating more accurate representation of the managed resources (Hayes, col. 4 lines 61 – 67).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the limitations of said claim are addressed in claim 4.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talbert in view of Yuan and Staiman as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tal (US-11281442-B1).
Regarding claim 5, the above combination show claim 1. The above combination not show wherein: the first data object information comprises a cost associated with an entitlement of the first plurality of entitlements; and the first data object modification comprises a reduction to the cost associated with the entitlement. Tal shows wherein: the first data object information comprises a cost associated with an entitlement of the first plurality of entitlements; and the first data object modification comprises a reduction to the cost associated with the entitlement (col. 35 lines 1-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the entitlement management system of the above combination with the cost management of Tal in order to ensure the managed data and entitlements are accurately maintained and updating, particularly when managing data where precision is of high importance (suggested when dealing with financial cost data).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the limitations of said claim are addressed in claim 5.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talbert in view of Yuan and Staiman as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Le-Chau (US-9467726-B1).
Regarding claim 6, the above combination shows wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a second user equipment to a second plurality of entitlements in the service directory, the second plurality of entitlements indicating second data object information for a second data object associated with the second user equipment (Yuan, Fig. 1A showing UE 105-1 and UE 105-2, showing multiple UE and Talbert, [15] discussing multiple users with their own particular subscription entitlement categories, and Talbert, [36] discussing where subscription entitlements result in baseline records being updated to reflect the entitlements on the respective UE); obtain a second category information associated with the second user equipment, the second category information indicating that the second user equipment is part of a second affinity group (Yuan, Fig. 1A showing UE 105-1 and UE 105-2, showing multiple UE and Talbert, [15] discussing multiple users with their own particular subscription entitlement categories; as Yuan discusses in [33-34], and Talbert in [15], different UE can be part of distinct subscription affinity groups); determine a second data object modification for the second data object information based at least in part upon the second category information, the second data object modification comprising a first value (Staiman, col. 7 lines 35 – 44, col. 8 lines 1-8 and col. 9 line 55 – col. 10 line 14; as noted above users being present in multiple affinity groups each with particular entitlements suggests the second recipient/category/affinity grouping claimed; group membership and changes thereto result in modifications to the resources stored in the management system, as discussed in col. 2 lines 45-67); generate a second report comprising the second plurality of entitlements and the third data object modification (Staiman, col. 2 lines 46-51, col. 7 lines 25-35, col. 8 lines 19-34, discussing regular and repeated object modifications for multiple objects across multiple categories and groups; col. 8 lines 51-64, col. 9 lines 5-6 and lines 41-55, discussing multiple workflows, each workflow capable of triggering report generation and a corresponding notification to a requestor, user, or group owner); and
transmit the second report to the second recipient (Staiman, col. 8 lines 51-64, col. 9 lines 5-6 and lines 41-55) .
The above combination, while showing the recipients (Staiman, col. 8 lines 51-64, col. 9 lines 5-6 and lines 41-55, discussing multiple workflows, each workflow capable of triggering report generation and a corresponding notification to a requestor, user, or group owner) does not show to: obtain an override command associated with the second recipient, the override command indicating a third data object modification comprising a second value;
determine whether the first value comprised by the second data object modification is less than the second value comprised by the third data object modification; and
act in response to determining that the first value comprised by the second data object modification is less than the second value comprised by the third data object modification. Le-Chau shows obtain an associated override command, the override command indicating a third data object modification comprising a second value (col. 4 lines 10-26, col. 24 lines 1- 38, Fig. 11 discussing a policy with a hierarchy; the application multiple rules and the multiple properties as discussed in col. 23 lines 28 – col. 24 line 37 suggests multiple object modifications as the rules are executed);
determine whether the first value comprised by the second data object modification is less than the second value comprised by the third data object modification (col. 4 lines 10-25, col. 24 lines 1-38, Fig. 11, discussing consideration/comparison of ranking in a hierarchy of rules); and
act in response to determining that the first value comprised by the second data object modification is less than the second value comprised by the third data object modification (col. 4 lines 10-25, col. 24 lines 1-38, Fig. 11, where the placement in the hierarchy determines which “rules are to be followed over other conditions and/rules” and thus which actions are taken).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the entitlement management system of the above combination with the override prioritization of Le-Chau in order to provide the flexibility and extensibility to incorporate complex conditions and rules in order to ensure the managed entitlements are properly enforced (col. 4 lines 10 – 27).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the limitations of said claim are addressed in claim 6.
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 JOHN M MACILWINEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571) 272 - 3949. 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.
JOHN MACILWINEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2442
/JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights