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 .
1. This action is in response to the communication filed on January 19, 2026. Claims 1-20 were originally received for consideration. No preliminary amendments for the claims have been received.
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. An initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS (form 1449), received on April 23, 2025, is attached to this Office Action.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,434. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are anticipated by the claims of the ‘434 Patent. Claim 1 of the present application discloses a metho comprising parsing a collection of granular privileges to generate a plurality privilege groups (see claim 8 of ‘434), identifying a set of privilege grant times (see claim 9 of ‘434), mapping the set of privilege grant times to a plurality of privilege groups (see claim 10 of ‘434), and generating an infrastructure graph based on the mapping wherein the infrastructure graph comprises identity nodes that represent the subject identities, resource nodes that represent the subject resources and edges that represent the privilege grant times (see claim 10 of ‘434). Therefore, claim 10 of the ‘434 patent discloses all the limitations of claim 1 of the present application). The dependent claims are likewise disclosed by the ‘434 Patent. Claim 2 discloses updating the infrastructure graph (see claim 11 of ‘434), claim 3 discloses generating the excessive privilege determination by comparing the usage time stamps (see claim 11 of ‘434), claim 4 discloses generating a user interface display and a privilege revocation (see claim 5 of ‘434), claim 5 discloses that each edge represents a respective privilege grant time and is connected to at least one identity node and represents a respective privilege grant time (see claim 10 of ‘434), and claim 6 discloses that the privilege grant time comprises a latest time when any privilege in the privilege group was granted to the identity (see claim 9 of ‘434). The other claims are system and computer-readable medium claims corresponding to the method claims 1-7 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is selected as being representative of the claims being rejected. Claim 1 is directed towards generating a graph which is a mental process and an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites a method for parsing a collection of granular privileges to generate a plurality of privilege groups, identifying a set of privilege grant times, mapping the set of privilege grant times to the plurality of privilege groups and generating an infrastructure graph based on the mapping.
Organizing data through mathematical correlations is similar to other claims that the courts have held to be abstract ideas. See, e.g., Digitech Image Techs., LLCv. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Organizing information through mathematical correlations). Turning to the second step of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In this case, it is determined the claims do not add additional elements which integrate the mathematical concepts disclosed by claim 1 into a practical application. The claim merely states collecting privileges, identifying grant times, and creating a graph based on a mapping.
The claims are directed towards constructing a graph using privilege grant times, identities and permissions. The claim does not contain any elements beyond the abstract idea which would integrate the mental process into a practical application.
Furthermore, the analysis proceeds to determine whether there is an inventive concept defined by an element or combination of elements in the claim, which is significantly more than the abstract idea. In this instance, there is nothing more than constructing an infrastructure graph based on collecting privileges and grant times. Therefore, there is no inventive concept.
Dependent claim 2 discloses updating the graph and generating an excessive privilege determination. However, this can be performed in the human mind. Claims 3, and 5-7 also merely disclose elements describing the graph which could still be performed in the human mind.
Claims 8-10, 12-14 are system claims analogous to the method claims 1-3, and 5-7 rejected above and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 15-20 are computer-readable medium claims analogous to the method claims 1-3, and 5-7 rejected above and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Jung Kim can be reached at 571-272-3804. 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.
/KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR/
07/17/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights