CTNF 19/044,524 CTNF 83278 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This is in response to the correspondence filed on 02/03/25. Claims 21-40 are still pending and have been considered below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 21, 28 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhatti et al. (2010/0306268) . Claim 21: Bhatti et al. discloses a system, comprising: one or more processors and corresponding memory configured to: receive, via an interface, requests for management of managed lifecycle roles (check if user has required role/privileges for requested operation) [page 9, paragraphs 0116-0117] having role access information and resettable expirations specifying expirations for the managed lifecycle roles [page 8, paragraphs 0109-0110]; in accordance with requests received via the interface, store managed lifecycle role definitions specifying the role access information and the resettable expirations, wherein a state of the role access information or of the resettable expirations is useable to determine whether respective identities are authorized to use respective managed lifecycle roles (enforcement is achieved by maintaining a priority queue of roles granted to the user ordered by time for each user’s session by using algorithm to calculate and populate the priority queue) [page 3, paragraphs 0041-0042]; and respond to requests to validate the managed lifecycle roles for respective identities with indications of whether, based on the state of the role access information or of the resettable expirations, the respective identities are authorized to use the respective managed lifecycle roles (in response to detecting a user’s request to perform an operation on a protected object, CheckActiveDeactiveQueues routine is invoked, which updates an ACL that is called upon to determine whether the user has necessary privileges) [page 9, paragraphs 0118-0119 | pages 10-11, paragraphs 0132-0135]. Claim 28: Bhatti et al. discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: providing an interface for receiving requests for management of managed lifecycle roles [page 9, paragraphs 0116-0117] having role access information and resettable expirations specifying expirations for the managed lifecycle roles [page 8, paragraphs 0109-0110]; storing, according requests received via the interface, managed lifecycle role definitions specifying the role access information and the resettable expirations, wherein a state of the role access information or of the resettable expirations is useable to determine whether respective identities are authorized to use respective managed lifecycle roles [page 3, paragraphs 0041-0042]; and responding to requests to validate the managed lifecycle roles for respective identities with indications of whether, based on the state of the role access information or of the resettable expirations, the respective identities are authorized to use the respective managed lifecycle roles [page 9, paragraphs 0118-0119 | pages 10-11, paragraphs 0132-0135]. Claim 35: Bhatti et al. discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing program instructions that are executable by one or more processors to implement a role manager configured to perform: providing an interface for receiving requests for management of managed lifecycle roles [page 9, paragraphs 0116-0117] having role access information and resettable expirations specifying expirations for the managed lifecycle roles [page 8, paragraphs 0109-0110]; storing, according requests received via the interface, managed lifecycle role definitions specifying the role access information and the resettable expirations, wherein a state of the role access information or of the resettable expirations is useable to determine whether respective identities are authorized to use respective managed lifecycle roles [page 3, paragraphs 0041-0042]; and responding to requests to validate the managed lifecycle roles for respective identities with indications of whether, based on the state of the role access information or of the resettable expirations, the respective identities are authorized to use the respective managed lifecycle roles [page 9, paragraphs 0118-0119 | pages 10-11, paragraphs 0132-0135] . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 22-27, 29-34 and 36-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,790,075. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are directed to a substantially similar technique of managing roles, which rely upon role access information and/or one or more role attributes that are configured to change over time and based on role lifecycle definitions. Furthermore, Examiner notes that each and every limitation of the instant claims appear to be substantially anticipated by the corresponding patented claims. Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that the instant claims and the patented claims are not directed to patentably distinct inventions; thus, properly rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting. 08-36 AIA Claim s 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,591 in view of Manza et al. (2015/0089620) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are directed to a substantially similar technique of managing roles, which rely upon role access information and/or one or more role attributes that are configured to change over time and based on role lifecycle definitions; and only differing in that the patented claims specifically determine whether a requesting identity is allowed to obtain one or more credentials to access the one or more resources. However, Manza et al. discloses a similar invention and goes on to disclose each of the differing aspects [page 2, paragraph 0036 | page 5, paragraph 0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the patented claims with the additional features of Manza et al. , in order to provide a more convenient single sign on system that is operable across different systems and applications, as suggested by Manza et al. [page 1, paragraphs 0003-0005]; thus, arriving at patented claims which are not patently distinct from the instant claims and properly rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Manza et al. (2015/0089620) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ZEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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. /EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435 Application/Control Number: 19/044,524 Page 2 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 19/044,524 Page 3 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 19/044,524 Page 4 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 19/044,524 Page 5 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 19/044,524 Page 6 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 19/044,524 Page 7 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 19/044,524 Page 8 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 19/044,524 Page 9 Art Unit: 2435
Prosecution Insights