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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Currently pending claim is 1.
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. See 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
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).
Claim 1 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of (or provisional) obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,218,912. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other – accordingly, because the listed claims of U.S. Patent virtually contain(s) every element of the listed claims of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Claim(s) of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim(s) and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. 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)”.
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.
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 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Raff et al. (U.S. Patent 11,637,864), in view of Kluck et al. (U.S. Patent 2016/0253352), and in view of Guo et al. (U.S. Patent 10,728,234).
As per claim 1, Raff teaches a method implemented in a security control platform to enforce scope-based security controls, comprising:
identifying one or more pre-defined restrictions that are configured to be enforced with respect to a cloud environment (Raff: Col. 4 Line 5 – 7 / Line 15 – 17);
with respect to a given cloud provider of a set of multiple cloud providers used by a particular enterprise (Raff: Figure 3, Col. 3 Line 38 – Col. 4 Line 4, Col. 13 Line 37 – 41 & C11 Line 42 – 48: a machine learning model is provided in a cloud computing platform associated with a set of multiple cloud providers associated with respective enterprise entities such as Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and etc., along with different security (permission) groups which is provisioned with a set of permissions in accordance with respective resource, users / accounts, cloud virtual machines, communication capabilities (ports / IP addresses), and etc.), identifying a scope, wherein the scope identifies a delimited path (see Kluck below) into a particular cloud environment of that given cloud provider (Raff: see above & Col. 4 Line 3 – 4 & Col. 3 Line 38 – 58: (a) identifying and selecting a scope for each of permission entity groups (i.e. security groups) in a cloud associated with data access services provided by a respective cloud service provider from a cloud computing platform, wherein the scope (as recited) identifies all files and/or file folders stored in the cloud accessible by the user accounts associated with the respective cloud service provider) ||
(Kluck: Para [0024]: an identified files and/or file folders stored in a cloud of a shared file system can be represented as a slash (“/”) delimited path into the cloud (as an identified scope) that reflects the current state of the files / folders to support the file system sharing and synchronization across cloud storage devices – this is also consistent with the disclosure of the instant specification regarding the scope (SPEC-PG.PUB: Para [0047] Line 1 – 2)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to propose the modification of identifying a scope, wherein the scope identifies a delimited path into a particular cloud environment of that given cloud provider because Kluck teaches to alternatively, effectively and securely support a file system sharing and synchronization across cloud storage devices, wherein an identified files and/or file folders stored in a cloud of the shared file system can be represented as a slash (“/”) delimited path into the cloud (as an identified scope) that reflects the current state of the files / folders (see above) within the Raff’s system of configuring security policies and selecting a scope for each of permission entity groups (i.e. security groups) in a cloud associated with data access services provided by a respective cloud service provider from a cloud computing platform, wherein the scope identifies all files and/or file folders stored in the cloud accessible by the user accounts associated with the respective cloud service provider to limit the cyber security attacks (see above).
wherein the scope is normalized (see Guo below), wherein the given cloud provider and at least one other cloud provider of the multiple cloud providers define contents of a respective scope differently from one another (Raff: Figure 3, Col. 3 Line 38 – Col. 4 Line 4, Col. 13 Line 37 – 41 & C11 Line 42 – 48: a cloud intelligence model of machine learning is supported in a cloud computing platform of multiple cloud providers associated with respective enterprise entities such as Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and etc., along with different security (permission) entity groups which is provisioned with a set of permissions in accordance with respective resource, users / accounts, cloud virtual machines, communication capabilities (ports / IP addresses), and etc.) ||
(Guo: Col. 3 Line 7 – 14: each of a security group entity is configured (i.e. normalized) with its respective security setting information such that a default setting is configured for any other identified security group(s) (i.e. scope(s)) with a set of permissions of denying access to the data, e.g. in text messages, during an execution of a particular security group such as a mobile payment application for preventing the data leakage attack – i.e. configuring a pre-defined permission to use a given service at an identified scope (security entity group) – this is also consistent with the disclosure of the instant specification regarding the scope (SPEC-PG.PUB: Para [0045] Line 1 – 5 and Para [0048] Line 6 – 16: a cloud intelligence data model provides a means for resources and associated permissions to be normalized across multiple cloud providers and accounts such that (b) in contrast to the prior paradigm, a default being utilized such that a set of permissions, e.g., all permissions, are denied and then only given to a particular identity on an as-needed basis).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to propose the modification wherein the scope is normalized, wherein the given cloud provider and at least one other cloud provider of the multiple cloud providers define contents of a respective scope differently from one another because Guo teaches to alternatively, effectively and securely provide a security management for different security groups such that each of a security group entity is configured (i.e. normalized) with its respective security setting information such that a default setting is configured for any other identified security group(s) (i.e. scope(s)) with a set of permissions of denying access to the data included in text messages during an execution of a particular security group such as a mobile payment application for preventing the data leakage – i.e. configuring a pre-defined restriction to use a given service at an identified scope (security entity group) (see above) within the Raff’s system of configuring security policies and selecting / identifying a specific security group of the associated service provider from the cloud computing platform, which is configured with a permission to use / provide respective services, capability and resource as needed to limit the cyber security attacks (see above).
configuring a security policy for the particular cloud environment of the given cloud provider, the security policy configured to apply at least one of the pre-defined restrictions to the identified scope (Raff: see above) || (Guo: see above & Col. 3 Line 7 – 14: (a) each of the security group entity is managed and configured with its respective security setting information and (b) a default setting is configured for any other identified security group(s) (i.e. scope(s)) with a set of permissions of denying access to the data included in text messages during an execution of a particular security group such as a mobile payment application for preventing the data leakage – i.e. configuring a pre-defined restriction to use a given service at an identified scope (security entity group) – this is also consistent with the disclosure of the instant specification regarding the scope (SPEC-PG.PUB: Para [0047] Line 1 – 2 & Para [0050] Line 1 – 8)); and
instantiating the security policy in the particular cloud environment of the given cloud provider of the multiple cloud providers used by the particular enterprise (Raff: see above & Col. 6 Line 64 – 66: a collected activity logs of permission usage data indicating which security policy (permissions) instantiated (used) by each cloud entity in a particular cloud
environment) || (Guo: see above).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONGBIT CHAI whose telephone number is (571)272-3788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Lynn D. Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
---------------------------------------------------
/Longbit Chai/
Longbit Chai E.E. Ph.D.
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
No. #2612 – 2026 ---------------------------------------------------
