DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 01/17/2025 having claims 1-10 pending.
Claims 1-10 are examined and being considered on the merits.
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 .
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Specification
The Specification filed on 01/17/2025 is accepted for examination purpose.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 01/17/2025 are accepted for examination purpose.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. TW113103532, filed on 01/30/2024.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: authority rule recording module, process authority rule recording module, process authority status recording module, process managing module, message transmitting module and access control module in claim 1 and similar for claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In parag. [0027] of the specification, it is described “The at least one processor is electrically connected to the data storage device 11, and functions in executing an operating system 10. The operating system 10 has a system layer 100 and an application layer 101, and includes an authority rule recording module 12, a process authority rule recording module 13, a process authority status recording module 14, a process managing module 15, a message transmitting module 16, and an access control module 17.” Parag. [0028] specifically describes the authority rule recording module as, “The authority rule recording module 12 is resident in the application layer 101 of the operating system 10. The authority rule recording module 12 therein stores a plurality of authority information.” At parag. [0030] describes the process authority rule recording module as, “The process authority rule recording module 13 is resident in the application layer 101 of the operating system 10. The process authority rule recording module 13 therein stores a plurality of sequential process authority rule information.” Additionally, parag. [0031] describes the process authority status recording module as, “The process authority status recording module 14 is resident in the application layer 101 of the operating system 10. The process authority status recording module 14 therein stores N process authority status information, where N is an integer larger than or equal to 0.”
Further, parag. [0033] describes the process managing module as, “the process managing module 15 judges whether a process name of the application process 2 is identical to one of the N predetermined process names of the N process authority status information stored in the process authority status recording module 14. And if no, the process managing module 15 compares the second characteristic items and the second characteristic data of the application process 2 in order with the first characteristic items and the first characteristic data of the plurality of sequential process authority rule information to determines a first selected authority information from the plurality of authority information of the plurality of sequential process authority rule information and a selected authority conversion rule datum from the plurality of first authority conversion rule data. The process managing module 15 controls the application process 2 to access the plurality of files (110 a˜110 n) in accordance with the first selected authority information. The process managing module 15 records the process name, the first selected authority information, and the selected authority conversion rule datum in the process authority status recording module 14 to form a new process authority status information that follows the N process authority status information.”
The message transmitting module is described at parag. [0033-0035] as, “The message transmitting module 16 selectively transmits a notification message to the administrator system 3 in accordance with the first selected authority information. Further, if the message transmitting module 16 does not receive an instructional message sent by the administrator system 3 in response to the notification message, the process managing module 15 changes the first selected authority information into a second selected authority information in accordance with the selected authority conversion rule datum. … Further, if the message transmitting module 16 receives the instructional message sent by the administrator system 3 in response to the notification message, the process managing module 15 changes the first selected authority information into a third selected authority information in accordance with the instructional message.”
Finally, parag. [0032-0033] describes the access control module as, “The access control module 17 is resident in the system layer 100 of the operating system 10, and is respectively coupled to the process managing module 15 and the data storage device 11. … When the application process 2 is executed to access the plurality of files (110 a˜110 n) stored in the data storage device 11 via the access control module 17”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 (similar for claim 7) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “authority rule recording module, process authority rule recording module, process authority status recording module, process managing module, message transmitting module and access control module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Review of the specification shows that the corresponding structural support or description for the recited “authority rule recording module, process authority rule recording module, process authority status recording module, process managing module, message transmitting module and access control module”, as follows:
Parag. [0007] describes, “The data processing system according to the first preferred embodiment of the invention includes a data storage device and at least one processor. The data storage device therein stores a plurality of files. The at least one processor is electrically connected to the data storage device, and functions in executing an operating system. The operating system has a system layer and an application layer, and includes an authority rule recording module, a process authority rule recording module, a process authority status recording module, a process managing module, a message transmitting module, and an access control module.” The specification identifies the location of each module within the application layer and system layer but does not, based on the disclosure provided, identify the structure corresponding to the claimed functions of each module. That is, a system comprising an storage device and a processor does not identifies the particular structure or algorithm corresponding to the claimed functional limitations of the respective modules.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, based on their dependency of Claim 1.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, based on their dependency of Claim 7.
Claim 1 (similar for claim 7) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention. In particular the claim recites the following limitations, “… a process authority status recording module, being resident in the application layer and therein storing N process authority status information, each process authority status information comprising a predetermined process name, one of the plurality of authority information, and a respective second authority conversion rule datum, wherein N is an integer larger than or equal to 0” and “the process managing module judges whether a process name of the application process is identical to one of the N predetermined process names of the N process authority status information stored in the process authority status recording module, and if no, the process managing module compares the second characteristic items and the second characteristic data of the application process in order with the first characteristic items and the first characteristic data of the plurality of sequential process authority rule information …”. However, it is not clear how the claimed process authority status recording module will store a zero (0) process authority status information. In addition, it is not clear how the process managing module will determine/judge whether a process name of the application process is identical to one f the N predetermined process names if nothing is recorded or stored. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, based on their dependency of Claim 1.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, based on their dependency of Claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independent claim 1 (similar claim 7) describes a system that dynamically determines process permissions by matching process characteristics against stored rule sets, then records the resulting authority status for future reuse. For unknown processes, it can grant a provisional authority, notify an administrator, and later adjust authority based on administrator input or a predefined conversion rule. This lets the system continue operating without waiting for perfect manual classification.
Claim 1 (similar claim 7) would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeong et al. (US 2023/0336555) relates to model management unit configured to manage a chain of supply-related task as a model; a role management unit configured to assign a role to an executor of each of the tasks to manage the roles; a task access authority setting unit configured to set a task-specific access authority for each of the roles to generate task access authority information; and an access control unit configured to, when access from the executor of each of the tasks is received, refer to the task access authority information based on the role assigned to the executor and perform access control.
Minako (JP 4455965) relates to an authority information generation method for generating authority information used for controlling a communication device using SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol), a communication device capable of being controlled by SNMP, and a computer. The present invention relates to a program for executing the authority information generating method as described above or causing a computer to function as a communication device as described above, and a computer-readable recording medium recording such a program.
Takayuki et al. (JP 2009301357) relates to a resource accessed by an application, the computer device stores an operation environment DB that stores a user role in association with the operation environment in which the application is executed from the operation environment in which the application is executed. Specifies the role stored in Then, the computer device identifies the access control information associated with the identified role from the access control DB that stores the access control information in association with the user role, and based on the identified access control information, Implement access control to resources.
Anderson et al. (US 10,540,523) relates to systems, methods, and computer program products to perform an operation comprising receiving, from an application executing on a system, a request to access a data file, wherein the data file is referenced by a variable name in a source code of the application, receiving data describing the request, wherein the data describing the request is obtained from a runtime stack of the application and includes a name of the application and a name of the data file, wherein the name of the data file is used as a value for the variable name, and storing an indication that the application accessed the data file in a cross-reference data store for the system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX D CARRASQUILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-5045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at 571-272-8878. 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.
/A.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2498
/JOHN B KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights