DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 19/019,067, filed 13 January 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner is interpreting several claim terms, using the broadest reasonable interpretation, as follows; these are terms which the applicant does not explicitly define.
“Middleware”: software that communicates with other software and/or devices.
A “RESTful” method in machine-to-machine communications: “REST” abbreviates “representational state transfer” and is interpreted consistent with the paper of Elmangoush et al., attached and cited herein, see e.g. Tables I-II. It inherently is implemented using APIs, and includes the ability to implement steps such as to register an application, deregister an application, update an application, create permissions, receive attributes, and update access right attributes, among other things.
The “service layer” appears to be related to the OSI 7-layer networking model, well known to those of ordinary skill in the networking arts. However, there is, in the model, nothing above the application layer; that is the topmost layer, and there is no layer commonly referred to as the “service layer”. The Examiner interprets the “service layer”, consistent with the claim structure and the use of the term in the specification, to be any layer (or set of layers) other than the application layer.
Pre-provisioned: provisioned before the beginning of the claimed process.
In the context of networked computers, a “transceiver” is any component or set of components that can send and receive data.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a request message requesting access a resource” appears to be missing a word. The Examiner suggests “a request message requesting access to a resource”. Further in regard to claim 8, “send” in the final step is ungrammatical in its context; the Examiner suggests “sending”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0163206) in view of Elmangoush et al. (“Design of RESTful APIs for M2M services”, 16th Int’l. Conf. on Intelligence in Next Generation Networks”, IEEE, Oct. 2012, pp. 50-56) further in view of Ramanathan (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0020151).
In-line citations are to McCarthy.
With regard to Claim 1:
McCarthy teaches: An apparatus implementing a service layer entity of a communication network, [0080; a “services layer” is used for the data processing] the service layer entity being an entity of a middleware supporting service capabilities through a set of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) [0179; APIs are used] to provide the service capabilities to a plurality of applications above an application protocol layer, [0021; it works with “libraries of applications”] the apparatus comprising:
a transceiver [Sheet 1, Fig. 1; the depicted topology requires one or more transceivers, as would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time] configured to receive, by the service layer entity of the communication network, from a requesting entity of the communication network, a request message requesting access a resource hosted by the service layer entity… [0124; “a request for materials” may be received]
one or more processors [0211; a processor is used] configured to:
determine, by the service layer entity, based on a service layer access control object associated with the requested resource, that the requesting entity does not have a pre-provisioned service layer access right to the requested resource, [0113; “data may be considered ‘stage data’ prior to allowing access” by anyone other than the creator; 0170; certain data may be available to specific users wherein other data may not] wherein the service layer access control object is stored in the middleware to manage service layer access rights to one or more resources of the middleware; [Sheet 10, Fig. 9; each module communicates with the others via the interface facility depicted]
identify, based on the service layer access control object and in response to determining that the requesting entity does not have the pre-provisioned service layer access right to the requested resource, another entity in the middleware of the communications network with which the service layer entity is to consult in performing a dynamic authorization of the requesting entity; [0113; the creator is able to approve that the data be available to others]
determine, in communication with the another entity, to grant the requesting entity a new service layer access right to the requested resource; [id.; the data becomes “’production data’ once approved” and can be accessed by others]
update the service layer access control object with the new service layer access right to the requested resource… [0113; publishing the staged data into production reads on this]
McCarthy does not explicitly teach that an item is a uniquely addressable element in the middleware having a representation that can be manipulated via RESTful methods, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Elmangoush teaches a design of M2M services using APIs which he refers to RESTful, [title] a term that appears to have been coined by the authors of that paper. It is based on the concept of “resources addressed by a URI”. [Pg. 53, section IV] It manages access rights. [Table I] Elmangoush and McCarthy are analogous art as each describes electronic means by which access to information may be controlled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Elmangoush with that of McCarthy in order to provide a low-cost, scalable and reliable solution, as taught by Elmangoush; [Pg. 50, section I] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply storing data in the manner of Elmangoush rather than that of McCarthy; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
McCarthy does not explicitly teach a transceiver further configured to send a message to the requesting entity indicating… that access to the requested resource by the requesting entity is approved, though he does explicitly teach taking a step based on the new service layer access right to the requested resource as cited above, but it is known in the art. Ramanathan teaches a system for trusted sharing [title] in which one user may manage access to content by another. [0157] a “notification” may be sent to a user to inform her that she is “approved to access the content”. [0162] Ramanathan and McCarthy are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means by which users may determine accessibility of data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ramanathan with that of McCarthy in order to improve security, as taught by Ramanathan; [0021] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing Ramanathan’s information in place of, or in addition to, that of McCarthy; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
In this and the subsequent claims, that a resource “is a uniquely addressable element in the middleware having a representation that can be manipulated via RESTful methods” purports to limit an external, unclaimed object; with respect to the claimed substrate, it is nonfunctional, descriptive matter which is considered but given no patentable weight, as no such manipulation actually takes place in any claim. That a message indicates “that access to the requested resource by the requesting entity is approved” consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. References are provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 2:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein an identity of the another entity is provided in a dynamic authorization policy associated with the requested resource. [0080; policies are provided to determine access; 0086; they may be adjusted which reads on them being dynamic]
With regard to Claim 3:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors further cause the apparatus to:
receive the dynamic authorization policy for the requested resource. [0086; a user may adjust a policy]
With regard to Claim 4:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors further cause the apparatus to:
receive, from the another entity, after performing the dynamic authorization, a list of granted service layer access rights for the requesting entity and an expiration time associated with the granted service layer access rights. [0119; lists of users authorized to perform certain functions are maintained; 0231; access may expire; 0237; this may be based on an expiration of time; simply changing how the data are obtained is obvious as a mere substitution of known parts (sources of data) with predictable results]
With regard to Claim 5:
The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the new service layer access right to the requested resource includes the list of granted service layer access rights. [0119 as cited above in regard to claim 4]
With regard to Claim 6:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the dynamic authorization is performed after receiving an indication that the requesting entity has made a payment. [0316; the system may provide access to resources “based on payment”]
With regard to Claim 8:
McCarthy teaches: A method for use in an apparatus, implementing a service layer entity of a communication network, [0080; a “services layer” is used for the data processing] the service layer entity being an entity of a middleware supporting service capabilities through a set of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) [0179; APIs are used] to provide the service capabilities to a plurality of applications above an application protocol layer, [0021; it works with “libraries of applications”] the method comprising:
receiving, by the service layer entity of the communication network, from a requesting entity of the communication network, a request message requesting access a resource hosted by the service layer entity… [0124; “a request for materials” may be received]
determining, by the service layer entity, based on a service layer access control object associated with the requested resource, that the requesting entity does not have a pre- provisioned service layer access right to the requested resource, [0113; “data may be considered ‘stage data’ prior to allowing access” by anyone other than the creator; 0170; certain data may be available to specific users wherein other data may not] wherein the service layer access control object is stored in the middleware to manage service layer access rights to one or more resources of the middleware; [Sheet 10, Fig. 9; each module communicates with the others via the interface facility depicted]
identifying, based on the service layer access control object and in response to determining that the requesting entity does not have the pre-provisioned service layer access right to the requested resource, another entity in the middleware of the communications network with which the service layer entity is to consult in performing a dynamic authorization of the requesting entity; [0113; the creator is able to approve that the data be available to others]
determining, in communication with the another entity, to grant the requesting entity a new service layer access right to the requested resource; [id.; the data becomes “’production data’ once approved” and can be accessed by others]
updating the service layer access control object with the new service layer access right to the requested resource… [0113; publishing the staged data into production reads on this]
McCarthy does not explicitly teach that an item is a uniquely addressable element in the middleware having a representation that can be manipulated via RESTful methods, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Elmangoush teaches a design of M2M services using APIs which he refers to RESTful, [title] a term that appears to have been coined by the authors of that paper. It is based on the concept of “resources addressed by a URI”. [Pg. 53, section IV] It manages access rights. [Table I] Elmangoush and McCarthy are analogous art as each describes electronic means by which access to information may be controlled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Elmangoush with that of McCarthy in order to provide a low-cost, scalable and reliable solution, as taught by Elmangoush; [Pg. 50, section I] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply storing data in the manner of Elmangoush rather than that of McCarthy; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
McCarthy does not explicitly teach send a message to the requesting entity indicating… that access to the requested resource by the requesting entity is approved, though he does explicitly teach taking a step based on the new service layer access right to the requested resource as cited above, but it is known in the art. Ramanathan teaches a system for trusted sharing [title] in which one user may manage access to content by another. [0157] a “notification” may be sent to a user to inform her that she is “approved to access the content”. [0162] Ramanathan and McCarthy are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means by which users may determine accessibility of data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ramanathan with that of McCarthy in order to improve security, as taught by Ramanathan; [0021] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing Ramanathan’s information in place of, or in addition to, that of McCarthy; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 9:
The method of claim 8, wherein an identity of the another entity is provided in a dynamic authorization policy associated with the requested resource. [0080; policies are provided to determine access; 0086; they may be adjusted which reads on them being dynamic]
With regard to Claim 10:
The method of claim 9, further comprising:
receiving the dynamic authorization policy for the requested resource. [0086; a user may adjust a policy]
With regard to Claim 11:
The method of claim 8, further comprising:
receiving, from the another entity, after performing the dynamic authorization, a list of granted service layer access rights for the requesting entity and an expiration time associated with the granted service layer access rights. [0119; lists of users authorized to perform certain functions are maintained; 0231; access may expire; 0237; this may be based on an expiration of time; simply changing how the data are obtained is obvious as a mere substitution of known parts (sources of data) with predictable results]
With regard to Claim 12:
The method of claim 11, wherein the new service layer access right to the requested resource includes the list of granted service layer access rights. [0119 as cited above in regard to claim 4]
With regard to Claim 13:
The method of claim 8, wherein the dynamic authorization is performed after receiving an indication that the requesting entity has made a payment. [0316; the system may provide access to resources “based on payment”]
With regard to Claim 15:
McCarthy teaches: An apparatus comprising one or more processors [0211; a processor is used] and memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, [0446; the “processor may include memory that stores methods, codes, instructions and programs as described herein”] implements a service layer entity of a communication network, [0080; a “services layer” is used for the data processing] the service layer entity being an entity of a middleware supporting service capabilities through a set of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) [0179; APIs are used] to provide the service capabilities to a plurality of applications above an application protocol layer, [0021; it works with “libraries of applications”] and causes the apparatus to:
receive, by the service layer entity of the communication network, from a requesting entity of the communication network, a request message requesting access a resource hosted by the service layer entity… [0124; “a request for materials” may be received]
one or more processors [0211; a processor is used] configured to:
determine, by the service layer entity, based on a service layer access control object associated with the requested resource, that the requesting entity does not have a pre-provisioned service layer access right to the requested resource, [0113; “data may be considered ‘stage data’ prior to allowing access” by anyone other than the creator; 0170; certain data may be available to specific users wherein other data may not] wherein the service layer access control object is stored in the middleware to manage service layer access rights to one or more resources of the middleware; [Sheet 10, Fig. 9; each module communicates with the others via the interface facility depicted]
identify, based on the service layer access control object and in response to determining that the requesting entity does not have the pre-provisioned service layer access right to the requested resource, another entity in the middleware of the communications network with which the service layer entity is to consult in performing a dynamic authorization of the requesting entity; [0113; the creator is able to approve that the data be available to others]
determine, in communication with the another entity, to grant the requesting entity a new service layer access right to the requested resource; [id.; the data becomes “’production data’ once approved” and can be accessed by others]
update the service layer access control object with the new service layer access right to the requested resource… [0113; publishing the staged data into production reads on this]
McCarthy does not explicitly teach that an item is a uniquely addressable element in the middleware having a representation that can be manipulated via RESTful methods, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Elmangoush teaches a design of M2M services using APIs which he refers to RESTful, [title] a term that appears to have been coined by the authors of that paper. It is based on the concept of “resources addressed by a URI”. [Pg. 53, section IV] It manages access rights. [Table I] Elmangoush and McCarthy are analogous art as each describes electronic means by which access to information may be controlled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Elmangoush with that of McCarthy in order to provide a low-cost, scalable and reliable solution, as taught by Elmangoush; [Pg. 50, section I] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply storing data in the manner of Elmangoush rather than that of McCarthy; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
McCarthy does not explicitly teach a transceiver further configured to send a message to the requesting entity indicating… that access to the requested resource by the requesting entity is approved, though he does explicitly teach taking a step based on the new service layer access right to the requested resource as cited above, but it is known in the art. Ramanathan teaches a system for trusted sharing [title] in which one user may manage access to content by another. [0157] a “notification” may be sent to a user to inform her that she is “approved to access the content”. [0162] Ramanathan and McCarthy are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means by which users may determine accessibility of data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ramanathan with that of McCarthy in order to improve security, as taught by Ramanathan; [0021] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing Ramanathan’s information in place of, or in addition to, that of McCarthy; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 16:
The apparatus of claim 15, wherein an identity of the another entity is provided in a dynamic authorization policy associated with the requested resource. [0080; policies are provided to determine access; 0086; they may be adjusted which reads on them being dynamic]
With regard to Claim 17:
The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors further cause the apparatus to:
receive, from the another entity, after performing the dynamic authorization, a list of granted service layer access rights for the requesting entity and an expiration time associated with the granted service layer access rights. [0119; lists of users authorized to perform certain functions are maintained; 0231; access may expire; 0237; this may be based on an expiration of time; simply changing how the data are obtained is obvious as a mere substitution of known parts (sources of data) with predictable results]
With regard to Claim 18:
The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the new service layer access right to the requested resource includes the list of granted service layer access rights. [0119 as cited above in regard to claim 4]
With regard to Claim 19:
The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the dynamic authorization is performed after receiving an indication that the requesting entity has made a payment. [0316; the system may provide access to resources “based on payment”]
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et al. in view of Elmangoush et al. further in view of Ramanathan further in view of Vij et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0135277).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 7:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the dynamic authorization comprises evaluating reputation information about the requesting entity.
With regard to Claim 14:
The method of claim 8, wherein the dynamic authorization comprises evaluating reputation information about the requesting entity.
With regard to Claim 20:
The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the dynamic authorization comprises evaluating reputation information about the requesting entity.
McCarthy, Elmangoush and Ramanathan teach the apparatus of claims 1 and 15 and method of claim 8, but do not explicitly teach using reputation information, but it is known in the art. Vij teaches a security architecture [title] which uses a “reputation-based attribute” in deciding whether to allow “authorizing” a device to “access or provide” a network service. [0020] Access can be assigned to a person based on the request of another. [0033] Vij and McCarthy are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for allowing a user to specify the access of another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Vij with that of McCarthy, Elmangoush and Ramanathan in order to improve security, as taught by Vij; [0003] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Vij’s data as a basis for a grant of access in place of, or in addition to, McCarthy’s data; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694