DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 01/08/2025. Claims 1-34 are pending and are examined.
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 statement (IDS) submitted on 01/08/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s benefit claim is hereby acknowledged of the U.S patent application No. 18/489,727, filed on 10/18/2023, which is a continuation of the U.S patent application No. 16/991,592, filed on 08/12/2020, which is a continuation of the U.S patent application No. 15/047,138, filed on 02/18/2016, which papers have been placed on record in the file.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-51 of any patents granted on application No. 18/489,727, claims 1-57 of any patents granted on application No. 16/991,592 and claims 1-3, 5-22 and 24-39 of any patents granted on application No. 15/047,138. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both claiming a common subject matter, “Allowing access to a resource by a process based on a privileged access of the process to the resource.”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 and 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 18 recite, “storing, by a computing device, encrypted data indicative of a plurality of privileges associated with a process accessing a plurality of resources of the computing device; determining, using the encrypted data, that the process is privileged to access a first resource of the plurality of resources; and allowing, based on the determining that the process is privileged, the process to access the first resource.” This is a process under its broadest reasonable interpretation which represents, storing data indicative of a plurality of privileges associated with a process accessing a plurality of resources, determining using the data that the process is privileged to access a first resource of the plurality of resources and allowing the process to access the first resource based on the determining results.
The underlying process would be performed exactly the same with in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Thus, all of the limitations are in fact a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity; See MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(II)-(III). While the claims do recite some functional steps, the underlying operations recited in the claim are acts that could be performed mentally and by pen & paper without the use of a computer. Our reviewing court has concluded that mental processes include similar concepts of collecting, manipulating and providing data. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the Federal Circuit held “the concept of . . . collecting data, . . . recognizing certain data within the collected data set,” ineligible); and Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes). However, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). We now turn to USPTO Step 2A, Prong 2, of the Revised Guidance to determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite how the generated digital findings artifact is being used to make the claimed invention qualify as a practical application; such as an application to improve network security. Accordingly both claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite any additional elements to make the claim an inventive concept. Accordingly the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1 and claims 19-27 depend on claim 18 and are of consequence rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 18-19, 21 and 25, are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being unpatentable over Bheemarasetti et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0,046,586 A1, referred to as Bheemarasetti).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Bheemarasetti teaches:
A method comprising: storing, by a computing device, encrypted data indicative of a plurality of privileges associated with a process accessing a plurality of resources of the computing device (Bheemarasetti: ¶ 0067- ¶ 0069, “The Access Manager 13 helps set access lists for user peer machines with data, collects and maintains access lists with permissions in encrypted form on the EPN server, and screens incoming requests from data accessors 3.”);
determining, using the encrypted data, that the process is privileged to access a first resource of the plurality of resources; and allowing, based on the determining that the process is privileged, the process to access the first resource (Bheemarasetti: ¶ 0067- ¶ 0069, “The EPN server's Access Manager 3 authenticates Peer A 5 based on the user's login id and password, and creates Request (qA) queues 19 for the contacting peer (FIGS. 2, 3, Step 2). The EPN server contains a Queue Manager 15 that manages the queues, in memory or inside a database for persistence. The details of authentication procedures are part of this invention and are described below. When a user accesses the system from a browser 3, a separate queue 21 is established by the queue manager 15 (FIGS. 2, 3, Step 4).”).
Regarding claim 18, Bheemarasetti further teaches:
A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Bheemarasetti: Fig. 2, (EN: EPN server); ¶ 0066).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Bheemarasetti teaches all the features of claims 1 and 18, as outlined above.
Bheemarasetti further teaches:
wherein the process and a plurality of additional processes are executing on the computing device, and wherein the storing comprises storing, for the plurality of additional processes, additional encrypted data indicative of privileges associated with the additional processes accessing at least a portion of the plurality of resources of the computing device (Bheemarasetti: ¶ 0067- ¶ 0069, “The Access Manager 13 helps set access lists for user peer machines with data, collects and maintains access lists with permissions in encrypted form on the EPN server, and screens incoming requests from data accessors 3.”).
Regarding claims 4 and 21, Bheemarasetti teaches all the features of claims 1 and 18, as outlined above.
Bheemarasetti further teaches:
wherein the plurality of resources of the computing device comprise two or more of: a central processor, a video processor, a security processor, a memory or memory region, a file system, an audio/video output, a USB port, an Ethernet port, an antenna, a cable input, a wireless receiver, a serial port, an external memory unit, a high definition media interface, a ZigBee interface, an optical interface, an SATA interface, a key ladder, a memory-to- -1- memory decryptor, a timer, a memory controller, a device driver, a kernel level operating system call, or a BIOS setting (Bheemarasetti: ¶ 0067- ¶ 0069, “The EPN server's Access Manager 3 authenticates Peer A 5 based on the user's login id and password, and creates Request (qA) queues 19 for the contacting peer (FIGS. 2, 3, Step 2). The EPN server contains a Queue Manager 15 that manages the queues, in memory or inside a database for persistence. The details of authentication procedures are part of this invention and are described below. When a user accesses the system from a browser 3, a separate queue 21 is established by the queue manager 15 (FIGS. 2, 3, Step 4).”).
Regarding claims 8 and 25, Bheemarasetti teaches all the features of claims 1 and 18, as outlined above.
Bheemarasetti further teaches:
determining, for the process, a validity period based on one or more of: a behavior of the process, one or more privileges for the process, or a risk of malicious attack via the process (Bheemarasetti: ¶ 0067- ¶ 0069, “The EPN server's Access Manager 3 authenticates Peer A 5 based on the user's login id and password, and creates Request (qA) queues 19 for the contacting peer (FIGS. 2, 3, Step 2). The EPN server contains a Queue Manager 15 that manages the queues, in memory or inside a database for persistence. The details of authentication procedures are part of this invention and are described below. When a user accesses the system from a browser 3, a separate queue 21 is established by the queue manager 15 (FIGS. 2, 3, Step 4).”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17 and 28-34 would be allowable, should applicant overcome the Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection, set forth in this office action.
Claims 3, 5-7, 9-10, 20, 22-24 and 26-27 if they were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, also should applicant overcome the Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for identifying allowable subject matter.
The closest prior arts made of records are, Bheemarasetti et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0,046,586 A1, referred to as Bheemarasetti), Sprigg et al. (U.S Pub No. 2003/0051169 A1, referred to as Sprigg) and Gunter (U.S Pub No. 2003/0172296 A1, referred to as Gunter).
Bheemarasetti discloses: A system for accessing data from any location and any device including those behind firewalls, proxy servers, address translations and other devices, while securing the data and network. The access may be by voice or wireless connection and the data may be PIM data such as calendaring or scheduling information or email.
Sprigg discloses: methods and systems wherein resources to a device are granted access to an application based on privileges associated with the application. A permission list may be created by a server. The permission list may be created using information from authorities, entities, or parties and information about the device resources.
Gunter discloses: a method and a system for manipulating permissions used to obtain access to services on a web server are disclosed. A permission may be included in a single electronic message that is to be sent to multiple recipients via a messaging system.
However regarding claims 11 and 28, the prior art of Bheemarasetti, Sprigg and Gunter, when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “determining, by a computing device and for each of a plurality of process types, a validity period specific to the process type; based on expiration of a validity period for a process type associated with a first process that is attempting to access a first resource of a plurality of resources of the computing device, performing a validation check of the first process; and based on the validation check indicating that the first process is valid, and based on the first process being privileged to access the first resource, allowing the first process to access the first resource.”.
Regarding claims 3 and 20, the prior art of Bheemarasetti, Sprigg and Gunter, when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “wherein: the process is associated with a root level kernel of an operating system of the computing device, and the determining and the allowing are performed by a super root level kernel, of the operating system, that is inaccessible to the root level kernel.”.
Regarding claims 5 and 22, the prior art of Bheemarasetti, Sprigg and Gunter, when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “detecting, for a hardware interface, a source of an incoming data packet; and determining, using the encrypted data, whether the source is privileged to access the hardware interface.”.
Regarding claims 6 and 23, the prior art of Bheemarasetti, Sprigg and Gunter, when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “based on a second process attempting to access a second resource of the plurality of resources of the computing device, determining, using stored additional encrypted data indicative of privileges associated with the second process, that the second process is not privileged to access the second resource; and preventing, based on the determining that the second process is not privileged, the second process from accessing the second resource.”.
Regarding claims 7 and 24, the prior art of Bheemarasetti, Sprigg and Gunter, when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “determining, based on a validation check performed after expiration of a validity period associated with the process, that the process is valid.”.
Regarding claims 9 and 26, the prior art of Bheemarasetti, Sprigg and Gunter, when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “detecting a triggering event comprising one or more of: an attempt to modify a privilege, an external instruction to modify or read a memory location, or an attempt to add code to a memory location; and based on the detected triggering event, causing one or more of: reporting of a security breach to a remote server, displaying of a message indicating detected malicious activity, terminating a code fragment, terminating all application processes executing on the computing device, or rebooting of the computing device.”.
Regarding claims 10 and 27, the prior art of Bheemarasetti, Sprigg and Gunter, when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “wherein the determining and the allowing are performed by a super root level kernel of an operating system of the computing device, the method further comprising one or more of: determining, by the super root level kernel and for each process attempting to access a resource of the plurality of resources of the computing device, whether the attempting process is privileged to access the resource; or preventing modification of privileges by processes other than the super root level kernel.”.
Claims 12-17 and 29-34 depend on claims 11 and 28, and are of consequence identified as allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN SAADOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8408. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Mehrmanesh Amir can be reached at 571-2703351. 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.
/HASSAN SAADOUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights