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. Instant application is a Continuation of Application No. 18/666650, now U.S. Patent 12,289,346; which is a Continuation of Application No. 17/543599, now U.S. Patent 12,021,900. In a preliminary amendment, claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-40 have been newly added. Claims 21-40 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 101
3. Examiner’s Eligibility Step 2B analysis (note MPEP 2106.05) has found that the additional elements of the claim beyond any abstract idea qualify as “significantly more” because they improve the functioning of a computer by improving the efficiency of the access control analysis through reducing the computational complexity of the access analysis process (note paragraphs [0016]-[0017] of the Specification and claims 21, 29 and 36, last limitation “generating the access analysis...”).
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,289,346. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
See Chart below.
5. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,021,900. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant Application
12,289,346
12,021,900
Claims 21, 29 and 36 - A system for access policy analysis, the system comprising:
one or more hardware processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions, that when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform:
receiving an electronic request that causes an access analysis of a first entity in a cloud service provider with respect to a resource hosted by the cloud service provider; and
after receiving the electronic request:
obtaining a first electronic access policy summary for the first entity;
obtaining a second electronic access policy summary for the resource;
obtaining, using a hierarchical data structure storing information about entities in the cloud service provider, a third electronic access policy summary for a second entity in the cloud service provider, the second entity being a higher level entity in the hierarchical data structure than the first entity; and
generating the access analysis of the first entity in the cloud service provider based on the first, second and third electronic access policy summaries.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 - A system for access policy analysis, the system comprising:
one or more hardware processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions, that when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform:
receiving an electronic request that causes an access analysis of an entity in a cloud service provider with respect to a resource hosted by the cloud service provider; and
responsive to receiving the electronic request: obtaining a first electronic access policy summary generated for the entity based …
obtaining a second electronic access policy summary generated for the resource based on the set of access policies applied by the access management system;
obtaining a third electronic access policy summary for the parent node; …
identifying, in a tree structure that describes a hierarchy of entities in the cloud service provider, a parent node of a node representing the entity in the hierarchy of entities;…
and generating the access analysis of the entity in the cloud service provider based on the third electronic access policy summary for the identified parent node in the tree structure, the first electronic access policy summary generated for the entity and the second electronic access policy summary generated for the resource.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 - A system, comprising:
one or more hardware processors with associated memory that implement an access policy analysis system, configured to:
… subsequent to storing the respective access policy summaries, receive an electronic request that causes an access analysis of an entity in the cloud service provider with respect to a resource hosted in the cloud service provider; and
responsive to receiving the electronic request: obtain a first electronic access policy summary, …
obtain a second electronic access policy summary, stored in the data store,
…
obtain a third electronic access policy summary for the node identified as the parent node…
generated for the resource based on the set of access policies applied by the access management system; traverse the tree structure to identify a node of the one or more nodes in the tree structure as a parent node of the entity in the hierarchy of entities…
generate the access analysis of the entity in the cloud service provider based on the third electronic access policy summary for the identified node in the tree structure, the first electronic access policy summary generated for the entity and the second electronic access policy summary generated for the resource.
Claims 22, 30 and 37
Claims 2, 10 and 17
Claims 2, 10 and 17
Claims 23 and 31
Claims 3 and 11
Claims 3 and 11
Claims 24, 32 and 38
Claims 4, 12 and 18
Claims 4, 12 and 18
Claims 25 and 33
Claims 5 and 13
Claims 5 and 13
Claims 26, 34 and 39
Claims 6, 14 and 19
Claims 6, 14 and 19
Claim 27
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claims 28, 35 and 40
Claims 8, 15 and 20
Claims 8, 15 and 20
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,289,346 contain every element of claims 21-40 of the instant application and as such anticipate claim of the instant application.
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,021,900 contain every element of claims 21-40 of the instant application and as such anticipate claim of the instant application.
“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).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 21-40 would be allowable with a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For independent claims 21, 29 and 36, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach the following limitations in conjunction with the rest of the claimed limitations:
obtaining, using a hierarchical data structure storing information about entities in the cloud service provider, a third electronic access policy summary for a second entity in the cloud service provider, the second entity being a higher level entity in the hierarchical data structure than the first entity; and generating the access analysis of the first entity in the cloud service provider based on the first, second and third electronic access policy summaries
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Doermann et al. (U.S. Patent 9,218,502) teaches traversing resource or accessor trees and using a parent node hierarchy to determine accessor permissions (note Fig. 4 and 8).
Andruschuk et al. (U.S. Patent 9,516,028) teaches determining an effective access control list using hierarchy of policies (note Fig. 3-4).
Collins et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0091583) teaches a node inheriting the policy of the parent node (note paragraph [0043]) and updating the policy (note paragraph [0071]).
Kastroulis (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0210201) teaches analyzing a path to determine to grant a request to access a resource (note Fig. 3).
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PEARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 6:00 pm; Monday through Friday.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at (571)270-1138. 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.
DAVID J. PEARSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2407
/David J Pearson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights