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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s original submittal made on 01/08/2026. Claim 1-20 are canceled. Claims 21-40 are new. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Specification (Title)
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 40 objected to because of the following informalities: Each claim recites the term “likelihood”. 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) 21, 22, 24, 25, 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoldi et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0195299 and Zoldi hereinafter) in view of Panjwani (US Patent Publication No. 2006/0156032 and Panjwani hereinafter).
1.-20. (Canceled).
As to claims 21 and 40, Zoldi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause performance of operations comprising:
extracting, by one or more processors, one or more features associated with the request (i.e., . ..teaches in par. 0008 the following: “…teaches in 0065 the following: “The query name itself can be examined to see whether the name appears normal or if its temporal neighbors have similar structure using Levenshtein and Jaccard distances, for example. These are text analytics methods that determine the distance, or number of characters apart, between two different strings such as "google.com" and "gooogle.com." For example, the Levenshtein distance would count the number of letters that need to change for the two domains to match. The Jaccard distance looks at shared substrings in the text strings, such as, for example `goo` in both, `.com` in both, `gle` in both, etc. Each of these substrings are called N-grams, the Jaccard technique uses these to find that these two are close by comparing the union on N-grams without counting the number of atomic changes to make them the same.”.),
the one or more features including at least one of a requester identity, a data sensitivity indicator, a requested operation type, an execution context associated with the request, or a historical access characteristic (i.e., …teaches in 0065 the following: “The query name itself can be examined to see whether the name appears normal or if its temporal neighbors have similar structure using Levenshtein and Jaccard distances, for example. These are text analytics methods that determine the distance, or number of characters apart, between two different strings such as "google.com" and "gooogle.com." For example, the Levenshtein distance would count the number of letters that need to change for the two domains to match. The Jaccard distance looks at shared substrings in the text strings, such as, for example `goo` in both, `.com` in both, `gle` in both, etc. Each of these substrings are called N-grams, the Jaccard technique uses these to find that these two are close by comparing the union on N-grams without counting the number of atomic changes to make them the same.” …teaches in par. 0037 the following: “The profiling levels include, but are not restricted to, the source IP within the DNS message that initiates the query (source IP), the combination source IP and the domain or host name the source is trying to have resolved (query name), the query name, the IP address of the resolved query name, and the set of IP addresses and query names that belong to one organization or group (internet clique));
applying, by one or more processors, one or more machine-learning models to the one or more features to generate a risk score representing a likelihood that the request violates a data access policy (i.e., …illustrates in figure 5, risk assessments and relative probability …teaches on par. 0054 the following: “self-calibrating analytics and combined to form a score”.),
wherein the one or more machine-learning models evaluate the request in view of behavioral patterns derived from prior access activity (i.e., …teaches in par. 0037 the following: “…allows for each computer internal to an organization to be profiled and monitored for changes in behavior.” …teaches in par. 0043 the following: “Methods for profiling entities include multiple queries of databases, or maintaining a history within the input message to determine if long term entity behavior differs from short term entity behavior.”);
determining, by one or more processors and based on the risk score, an access action to be applied to the request (i.e., …teaches in the abstract the following: “One or more scores are generated representing probabilities that one or more client computers is infected by malware.” …teaches in par. 0035 the following: “network administrators can have a set of cases ranked by their scores, allowing the administrators to more efficiently focus resources on the most suspicious entities and prevent data loss as well as the growth of the botnets.”. …teaches in par. 0058 the following: “Collaborative Filtering can be used to determine if an ASN combination is rare, given the internal computer's history, and identify that the malware query names do not fit in with the surrounding legitimate DNS queries.” …teaches in par. 0059 the following: “ … compromised hosts are removed from the bot network when they are cleansed of malware or have their IP addresses blocked.” …teaches in par. 0071 the following: “Once a domain/IP is positively identified as malicious it is assigned a large risk value, and host computer's which have connected to it have the riskiness propagate through edges of the graph and are thus risky.”).
Zoldi does not expressly teach:
intercepting, by one or more processors, a request by an application to access data stored in one or more data repositories,
wherein the request is intercepted prior to execution by the one or more data repositories;
and selectively, by one or more processors, enforcing the access action by at least one of permitting the request, modifying the request, modifying a response to the request, delaying the request, or denying the request.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Panjwani.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “intercepting, by one or more processors, a request by an application to access data stored in one or more data repositories”, teaches in par. 0040 the following: “… intercepts data flowing to one or more unpatched computers, and makes the behavior of the combined UPM and unpatched system the same as a patched system.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the request is intercepted prior to execution by the one or more data repositories”, teaches in par. 0040 the following: “the universal patching machine (UPM) intercepts data flowing to one or more unpatched computers, and makes the behavior of the combined UPM and unpatched system the same as a patched system.”. The examiner notes that Panjwani tells us that the unpatched system behaves the same as the patched system after the interception. Therefore, the interception happens before the execution.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “and selectively, by one or more processors, enforcing the access action by at least one of permitting the request, modifying the request, modifying a response to the request, delaying the request, or denying the request", Panjwani teaches in par. 0066 the following: “Patching machine 20 intercepts inbound and outbound traffic associated with network 12 (FIG. 3). As data passes through patching machine 20, patching machine 20 detects and fixes security vulnerabilities. If, for example, patching machine 20 determines that incoming data for a web server 14 in network 12 includes an http request and if there is a security vulnerability related to http requests, the patching machine 20 can extract the request from the data being sent to the web server and can alter the request so as to overcome the vulnerability. By patching the traffic in this way, it is not necessary to block potentially legitimate http requests.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Zoldi with the teachings of Panjwani by having their system comprise an enhanced request analysis process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to analyze request data, wherein the enhanced request analysis process helps facilitate robust detection capability within the network and makes it easier to analyze request.
As to claim 22, the system of Zoldi and Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above teaches security , specifically Zoldi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein determining the access action comprises comparing the risk score to one or more thresholds defined by the data access policy (i.e., …illustrates in figure 5, risk assessments and relative probability).
As to claim 24, the system of Zoldi and Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above teaches security , specifically Zoldi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein applying the one or more machine-learning models comprises combining outputs of at least two different machine-learning models to generate the risk score (i.e., …illustrates in figure 6 a score generation process using different learning model factors).
As to claim 25, the system of Zoldi and Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above teaches security , specifically Zoldi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, further comprising: generating an explanation identifying one or more features that contributed to the risk score (i.e., …teaches in par. 0054 the following: “models, features can be combined using uniform or expertly selected weights. If some labels do exist, then supervised methods can be used to determine the weightings applied to the features to produce a score…”).
As to claim 38, the system of Zoldi and Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above teaches security, specifically Zoldi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the behavioral patterns comprise access frequency, access timing, data type correlations, or deviations from prior access baselines (i.e., …teaches in par. 0043 the following: “Methods for profiling entities include multiple queries of databases, or maintaining a history within the input message to determine if long term entity behavior differs from short term entity behavior.”).
Claim(s) 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoldi in view of Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Cheng (US Patent No. 8,844,028).
As to claim 23, the system of Zoldi and Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above teaches security , specifically neither reference expressly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein intercepting the request comprises intercepting a database query via a security driver that wraps a database driver without requiring modification of the application.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Cheng.
Cheng teaches as part of his claim 1 claim limitations the following: “An integrated secured open database connectivity (ODBC) application programming interface (API) arrangement, comprising: a driver manager, said driver manager being configured for at least handling a function call from an application program; a set of drivers, said set of drivers being configured for at least accessing a data source and applying said function call to said data source; a security module, said security module being configured for performing at least one of scanning said function call for malicious content and preventing an unauthorized user from accessing said data source; and a secured driver manager, said secured driver manager being in communication with at least said security module and disposed in a data path between said application program and said driver manager to at least intercept said function call to decide whether said function call would be forwarded to said driver manager, wherein said driver manager, a driver of said set of drivers, and said security module is implemented as computer readable code in a non-transitory computer readable medium..
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Zoldi and Panjwani with the teachings of Cheng by having their system comprise an enhanced access control process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control access attempts, wherein the enhanced access control process helps facilitate robust system access performance and makes it easier to configure access attempts.
Claim(s) 26-28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoldi in view of Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Fitzgerald et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2008/0134178 and Fitzgerald hereinafter).
As to claim 26, the system of Zoldi and Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above teaches security, specifically Zoldi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, further comprising: recording an access event associated with the request (i.e., …teaches in par. 0060 the following: “ a technique known as a Behavior Sorted List (BSL), such as that provided by FICO, can be used to store IP addresses associated with a domain name or Internet clique”).
The system of Zoldi and Panjwani does not expressly teach:
and updating at least one of the one or more machine-learning models based on access events recorded after enforcement of prior access actions.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald teaches in par. 0059 the following: “The learning module 213 is programmed or otherwise configured to learn which VMs (such as guests/VMs 107) require what adaptations in a managed system according to an embodiment of the present invention. In one such case, the learning module 213 is configured to derive changes made during the adapt process (e.g., just after compliance is satisfied)”. The examiner notes that the system will adapt based on prior compliances.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Zoldi and Panjwani with the teachings of Fitzgerald by having their system comprise an enhanced system feedback process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to keep the system up to date, wherein the enhanced system feedback process helps facilitate better system performance and makes it easier to implement changes.
As to claim 27, the system of Zoldi and Panjwani as applied to claim 26 above teaches security , specifically Zoldi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein updating at least one of the one or more machine-learning models is further based on feedback derived from administrator modification or override of an access action (i.e., …the examiner notes that applicant’s usage of the term “or” places above limitation(s) alternative form. As such the examiner notes that Zoldi teaches in par. 0014 the following: “ground-truth feedback determined from users or administrators of the monitored systems comprises some or all of the externally determined risk quantification.”).
As to claim 28, the system of Zoldi and Panjwani as applied to claim 26 above teaches security , specifically Zoldi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein updating at least one of the one or more machine-learning models is performed using access events collected across a plurality of computing environments without transferring underlying sensitive data (i.e., …teaches in par. 0034 the following: “…data can be fed back into the monitoring system to update model weights.”. …teaches in par. 0037 the following: “provide an efficient means to update real-time streaming C&C features without having to explicitly store historical DNS messages”.).
As to claim 35 the system of Zoldi and Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above teaches security, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the one or more machine-learning models are trained using historical access events labeled according to prior policy enforcement outcomes.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald teaches in par. 0059 the following: “The learning module 213 is programmed or otherwise configured to learn which VMs (such as guests/VMs 107) require what adaptations in a managed system according to an embodiment of the present invention. In one such case, the learning module 213 is configured to derive changes made during the adapt process (e.g., just after compliance is satisfied)”. The examiner notes that the system will adapt based on prior compliances.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Zoldi and Panjwani with the teachings of Fitzgerald by having their system comprise an enhanced system feedback process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to keep the system up to date, wherein the enhanced system feedback process helps facilitate better system performance and makes it easier to implement changes.
Claim(s) 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoldi and Panjwani in view of Fitzgerald as applied to claim 26 above and further in view of Downing et al. (US Patent No. 10,945,016 and Downing hereinafter).
As to claim 29, the system of Zoldi, Panjwani and Fitzgerald as applied to claim 26 above teaches security, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein recording the access event comprises storing metadata associated with the request in a log.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Downing.
Downing teaches as part of his claim 22 claim limitations the following: “monitoring the plurality of compute device for one or more predefined events; responsive to a given compute device triggering one of the predefined events, determining if the given compute device is associated with a crypto-currency wallet; and sending associated metadata to a blockchain if the given compute device is determined to be associated with a crypto-currency wallet.”. The examiner notes that the access event is accessing the crypto-currency wallet.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Zoldi, Panjwani and Fitzgerald with the teachings of Downing by having their system comprise an enhanced access monitoring process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to analyze access attempts, wherein the enhanced access monitoring process helps facilitate robust access monitoring within the network and makes it easier to track access attempts.
As to claim 30, the system of Zoldi, Panjwani and Fitzgerald as applied to claim 29 above teaches security, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 29, wherein the log is maintained as an append-only data structure.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Downing.
Downing teaches as part of his claim 22 claim limitations the following: “monitoring the plurality of compute device for one or more predefined events; responsive to a given compute device triggering one of the predefined events, determining if the given compute device is associated with a crypto-currency wallet; and sending associated metadata to a blockchain if the given compute device is determined to be associated with a crypto-currency wallet.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Zoldi, Panjwani and Fitzgerald with the teachings of Downing by having their system comprise an enhanced access monitoring process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to analyze access attempts, wherein the enhanced access monitoring process helps facilitate robust access monitoring within the network and makes it easier to track access attempts.
As to claim 31, the system of Zoldi, Panjwani and Fitzgerald as applied to claim 30 above teaches security, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 30, wherein the append-only data structure is stored in an immutable or write-once storage system.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Downing.
Downing teaches as part of his claim 22 claim limitations the following: “monitoring the plurality of compute device for one or more predefined events; responsive to a given compute device triggering one of the predefined events, determining if the given compute device is associated with a crypto-currency wallet; and sending associated metadata to a blockchain if the given compute device is determined to be associated with a crypto-currency wallet.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Zoldi, Panjwani and Fitzgerald with the teachings of Downing by having their system comprise an enhanced access monitoring process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to analyze access attempts, wherein the enhanced access monitoring process helps facilitate robust access monitoring within the network and makes it easier to track access attempts.
As to claim 32, the system of Zoldi, Panjwani and Fitzgerald as applied to claim 31 above teaches security, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 31, wherein entries in the append-only data structure include cryptographic hash values derived from prior entries to provide tamper detection.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Downing.
Downing teaches as part of his claim 22 claim limitations the following: “monitoring the plurality of compute device for one or more predefined events; responsive to a given compute device triggering one of the predefined events, determining if the given compute device is associated with a crypto-currency wallet; and sending associated metadata to a blockchain if the given compute device is determined to be associated with a crypto-currency wallet.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Zoldi, Panjwani and Fitzgerald with the teachings of Downing by having their system comprise an enhanced access monitoring process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to analyze access attempts, wherein the enhanced access monitoring process helps facilitate robust access monitoring within the network and makes it easier to track access attempts.
Claim(s) 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoldi, Panjwani and Fitzgerald in view Downing as applied to claim 32 above and further in view of Guerin et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0067088 and Guerin hereinafter).
As to claim 33, the system of Zoldi, Panjwani, Fitzgerald and Downing as applied to claim 32 above teaches storing data, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 32, wherein the append-only data structure comprises a directed acyclic graph of entries linked by cryptographic hash pointers.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Guerin.
Guerin teaches as part of his claim 1 claim limitations the following: “(a) a server or a client storing a metadata hash map that is associated with a cache stored on the server, wherein: (1) the cache stores one or more data records comprising a directed acyclic graph (DAG), wherein the directed acyclic graph is comprised of a collection of one or more nodes connected by one or more edges, each of the nodes representing one or more tasks ordered into a sequence, and each of the edges representing one or more constraints on the nodes connected by the edges; and (2) the metadata hash map includes one or more entries associated with the data records stored in the cache, each of the entries are associated with a key for a corresponding data record in the cache, each of the entries store metadata for the corresponding data record, and the metadata comprises a server-side remote pointer that references the corresponding data record stored in the cache on the server; (b) the client accessing a selected data record stored in the cache on the server using a provided key by: (1) identifying one or more potentially matching entries in the metadata hash map using a hash code for the provided key; (2) accessing one or more data records stored in the cache on the server using the server-side remote pointers from the potentially matching entries in the metadata hash map; and (3) determining whether the accessed data records match the selected data record using the provided key; and (c) the client executing the tasks associated with the accessed data record using the constraints associated with the data record.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Zoldi, Panjwani, Fitzgerald and Downing with the teachings of Guerin by having their system comprise an enhanced data storage process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to store data, wherein the enhanced data storage process helps facilitate robust data storage within the network and makes it easier to maintain data.
Claim(s) 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoldi in view of Panjwani as applied to claim 21 and further in view of Du et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0268975 and Du hereinafter).
As to claim 34, the system of Zoldi and Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above teaches security , specifically neither reference expressly teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein selectively enforcing the access action comprises modifying a response to the request by masking, redacting, or substituting at least a portion of the data associated with the request.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Du.
The examiner notes that applicant’s usage of the term “or” places the above limitation(s) in alternative form. Du teaches in par. 0076 the following: “such methods may generate responses indirectly or "opaquely" by using a received request and a distance function to find the closest matching request in a transaction library, and may then return the associated response from the transaction library, as modified with symmetric field substitution from the received request.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Zoldi and Panjwani with the teachings of Panjwani by having their system comprise an enhanced request analysis process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to assess data, wherein the enhanced request analysis process helps facilitate robust response capability within the network and makes it easier to respond to request.
Claim(s) 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoldi in view of Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Kurapati et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2007/0121596 and Kurapati hereinafter).
As to claim 36, the system of Zoldi and Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above teaches security, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, further comprising: a means for intercepting and controlling data access requests based on machine- learning-derived risk scores.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Kurapati.
Kurapati teaches in par. 236 the following: “uses Spam Filter 1748 to apply spam policies based on trust score of the Sender/Sender group”. Teaches in par. 239 the following: “The subsystem learns trust scores 2106”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Zoldi and Panjwani with the teachings of Kurapati by having their system comprise an enhanced scoring process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to process system determinations, wherein the enhanced scoring process helps facilitate better detection makes it easier to target specific data.
As to claim 37, the system of Zoldi and Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above teaches security, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the operations further comprise: a step for dynamically enforcing data access policies based on machine-learning- derived risk scores.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Kurapati.
Kurapati teaches in par. 236 the following: “uses Spam Filter 1748 to apply spam policies based on trust score of the Sender/Sender group”. Teaches in par. 239 the following: “The subsystem learns trust scores 2106”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Zoldi and Panjwani with the teachings of Kurapati by having their system comprise an enhanced scoring process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to process system determinations, wherein the enhanced scoring process helps facilitate better system detection capability and makes it easier to target specific data.
Claim(s) 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoldi in view of Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Canning et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2014/0020078 and Canning hereinafter).
As to claim 39, the system of Zoldi and Panjwani as applied to claim 21 above teaches security, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the one or more machine-learning models output a confidence metric associated with the risk score, and wherein the access action is further determined based on the confidence metric.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Canning.
Canning teaches in par. 0055 the following: “confidence level”. The examiner notes that access is based on the confidence level related to the score.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Zoldi and Panjwani with the teachings of Canning by having their system comprise an enhanced access control process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control system access, wherein the enhanced access control process helps facilitate access monitoring and makes it easier to control system access.
Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mantripragada et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2009/0103524).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN F WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3826.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN F WRIGHT/
Prosecution Insights