DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,565. Claims 1-18 of US Patent No. 12,212,565 contains every element of claim 1-20 of the instant application and as such anticipate claim 1-20 of the instant application. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as shown below in mapping of for example the claim 1.
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,212,565
1. A method comprising:
identifying, among a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls] that are permitted to be called by a first account and representing features that are available to the first account responsive to accessing a service platform, a subset of API calls permitted to be called by a second account when impersonating the first account in an impersonation mode that enables the second account to impersonate a first account's access to the service platform;
providing, by a processing device and to a client device associated with the second account, information identifying the subset of API calls to be called by the second account when impersonating the first account; and
causing, at the client device associated with the second account, a presentation of a first graphical user interface (GUI) configured to access features of the service platform corresponding to the subset of API calls.
A method comprising:
authenticating a first user of a first account associated with a service platform based on one or more credentials;
determining whether the first account of the authenticated first user is authorized to operate in an impersonation mode that enables the first account to impersonate a second account's access to the service platform;
subsequent to authorizing the first account to operate in the impersonation mode,
identifying, among a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls that are permitted to be called by the second account and representing features that are available to the second account responsive to accessing the service platform, a subset of API calls permitted to be called by the first account when impersonating the second account in the impersonation mode;
providing, to a client device associated with the first account, information identifying the subset API calls to be called by the first account when impersonating the second account; and
causing, at the client device associated with the first account of the first user, a presentation of a first graphical user interface (GUI) having an appearance that reflects an appearance of a second graphical user interface that is associated with the second account of a second user and with the second account's access to the service platform.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
835 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims when analyzed under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, are directed to abstract idea. Claim 1 for example, recites a method and, therefore, is a process.
The claim recites the limitation of “…identifying, among a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls that are permitted to be called by a first account …a subset of API calls permitted to be called by a second account when impersonating the first account in an impersonation mode …;
providing, …information identifying the subset of API calls to be called by the second account when impersonating the first account; and causing, at the client device associated with the second account, a presentation of a first graphical user interface (GUI) configured to access features of the service platform corresponding to the subset of API calls”. These limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation are directed performance of the limitation in a human mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a human (manger) could simply review a list of available actions (i.e., view employees records, edit employees records, create account) that are permitted to be performed by a human administrator (first account), identify within the list a subset of the actions (i.e., view employees records and edit employees records) that are permitted to be performed by the administrator’s assistant (second account), and communicating verbally or on a written paper instruction and the selection of permitted actions to the assistant, where the assistant follows when acting as administrator to perform the permitted actions. Thus, the claim recites a mental process when analyzed under step 2A prong 1.
Claim is further analyzed in step 2A prong 2, to evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. However, each of the remaining limitation (i.e., processing device, client device) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting modified domain name), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional element is no more than generic computer functions. Thus, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim is additionally analyzed under Step 2B to evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. When claims evaluated under step 2B, it is no more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication anything other than a generic computer component. The mere of “…identifying…a subset of API calls permitted to be called by a second account…
Providing…information identifying the subset of API calls to be called by the second account…impersonating the first account; and causing… a presentation of a first graphical user interface…” is a well-understood, routing and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here.
Independent claims 9 and 17 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 narrow the identifying step to include, determining a plurality of features that are available to the first account on the service platform, the plurality of features accessed by the plurality of API calls; and identifying, among the plurality of features available to the first account on the service platform, a subset of the plurality of features that are permitted for use by the second account when impersonating the first account, wherein the subset of features are accessed by the subset of API calls, which could be performed by a human. A human could look at a written list and determine a plurality of features that are available to the first account on the service platform, and identify within the list a subset of the plurality of features that are permitted for use by the second account when impersonating the first account. The claim do not reciter additional element that amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Claims 3, 11 and 19 recite, wherein the subset of API calls is a first subset of API calls, the method further comprising: receiving, from the second account impersonating the first account in the impersonation mode, a first request to access a different part of the first GUI; responsive to receiving the first request to access the different part of the first GUI, identifying, among the plurality of API calls at runtime, a second subset of API calls that are permitted be called by the second account to access at least some features available to first account at the different part of the first GUI; and providing, to the client device associated with the second account, information identifying the second subset of API calls to be called by the second account when accessing the different part of the first GUI, which could be performed by a human. A human could receive from an administrator’s assistant a request to access a task or part oof a task written on paper, identify among the plurality of action written on a paper a second subset of action that are permitted to be called by the administrator’s assistant; and communicating verbally or on a written paper the second subset of action to the admonitor’s assistant. The claim do not reciter additional element that amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Claims 4, 12 and 20 recite, receiving, from the client device, a second request to authenticate a user of the second account of the service platform, the second request identifying one or more credentials; authenticating the user of the second account associated with the service platform based on the one or more credentials; and responsive to authenticating the user based on the one or more credentials, sending a first token indicative that the second account is authorized to access the service platform, which could be performed by a human. A human administrator could receive a request including a credential (badge, password) to use or access a service, provide authentication based on the credential and upon authentication communicate a code verbally or on a piece of paper indicating that the second account authorized to access or use a service. The claim do not reciter additional element that amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Claims 5 and 13 recite, receiving a third request to authorize the second account to operate in the impersonation mode; determining whether the second account is authorized to operate in the impersonation mode that enables the second account to impersonate the first account's access to the service platform; and responsive to authenticating the user of the second account and authorizing the second account to operate in the impersonation mode, enabling the second account to acquire a second token, which could be performed by a human. A human could receive a third request to authorize the second account to operate in the impersonation mode, determine if the account is authorized and enable the second account to impersonate the first account’s access to a service. The claim do not reciter additional element that amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Claims 6 and 14 recite, wherein determining whether the second account is authorized to operate in the impersonation mode that enables the second account to impersonate the first account's access to the service platform, comprises: determining whether the second account associated with an organization of the service platform is authorized to operate in the impersonation mode for another organization of the service platform, the first account associated with the other organization, which could be performed by a human. A human could determine if the second account is authorized to operate in impersonation mod by determining if the second account is in a list of account associated with an organization of the service platform and is listed as authorized account to operate in the impersonation mode for other organization of the service platform. The claim do not reciter additional element that amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 15 recite, wherein the first GUI having has an appearance that is substantially similar to a graphical user interface associated with the first account's access to the service platform, which is considered an insignificant extra solution activity. Insignificant extra solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 8 and 16 recite, wherein the first GUI has functionality that is substantially similar to a graphical user interface associated with the first account's access to the service platform based at least in part on the subset of API calls which is considered an insignificant extra solution activity. Insignificant extra solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)272-7961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:00 am-5:00pm (EST).
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571)270-5143. 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.
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights