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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities The instant claims recite (“based on a URI included in the request”). They should recite “based on a Universal Resource Identifier (URI) included in the request”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Application 19095486 and US Patent 12289247
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 19 of US Patent 12289247.
Limitations of the Claims 1, 11, and 20 in the instant application 19095486 “receiving a request to provide access to a resource”, and the limitations in claims 1, 10, and 19 in the US Patent 12289247 “receiving a request to provide access to a resource” have similar subject matters.
Limitations of the Claims 1, 11, and 20 in the instant application 19095486 “generating a first graph based on a URI included in the request, the first graph comprises a node that represents a classified permission for providing access to the resource”, and the limitations in claims 1, 10, and 19 in the US Patent 12289247 “the request being associated with a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), generating a URI classification tree structure based on the URI, the URI classification tree structure comprises a plurality of leaf nodes, each leaf node representing a classified permission required for authorizing the request;” have similar subject matters.
Limitations of the Claims 1, 11, and 20 in the instant application 19095486 “traversing a second graph to determine that a granted permission in the second graph matches the classified permission represented by the node in the first graph, the second graph representing a plurality of granted permissions that are granted to an identity associated with the request”, and the limitations in claims 1, 10, and 19 in the US Patent 12289247 “generating, at runtime, a graph representing the plurality of granted permissions; traversing the graph to determine that one or more granted permissions in the plurality of granted permissions match one or more classified permissions represented by one or more leaf nodes in the URI classification tree structure” have similar subject matters.
Limitations of the Claims 1, 11, and 20 in the instant application 19095486 “authorizing the request to provide access to the resource based on the matched classified permission”, and the limitations in claims 1, 10, and 19 in the US Patent 12289247 “authorizing the request based on the matched one or more granted permissions represented by the one or more leaf nodes in the URI classification tree structure; and based on the authorizing the request, providing the access to the resource” have similar subject matters.
Claims 2, 12 are non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 19 of US Patent 12289247.
Limitations of the Claims 2, 12 in the instant application 19095483 “wherein the first graph comprises a URI classification tree structure that comprises a plurality of nodes”, and the limitations in claims 1, 10, and 19 in the US Patent 12289247 “the URI classification tree structure comprises a plurality of leaf nodes” have similar subject matters.
Claims 3, 13 are non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, and 16 of US Patent 12289247.
Limitations of the Claims 3, and 13 in the instant application 19095483 “generating the URI classification tree structure based on a URI template”, and the limitations in claims 7, and 16 in the US Patent 12289247 “generating the URI classification tree structure further based on a URI template.” have similar subject matters.
Claims 4, and 14 are non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, and 17 of US Patent 12289247.
Limitations of the claims 4 and 14 in the instant application 19095483 “wherein each node in the URI classification tree structure is organized based on the URI template”, and the limitations in claims 8, and 17 in the US Patent 12289247 “wherein each node in the URI classification tree structure is organized based on the URI template” have similar subject matters.
Claims 5, and 15 are non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, and 18 of US Patent 12289247.
Limitations of the claims 5 and 15 in the instant application 19095483 “detecting a change to the URI template; and dynamically updating the first graph based on the change”, and the limitations in claims 9, and 18 in the US Patent 12289247 “detecting a change associated with the URI template; and updating the URI classification tree structure at run time based on the change” have similar subject matters.
Claims 6 and 16 are non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 12 of US Patent 12289247.
Limitations of the claims 6 and 16 in the instant application 19095483 “wherein the second graph comprises an assertion tree structure that is dynamically generated and updated at runtime, and wherein the assertion tree structure represents one or more granted permissions that correspond to one or more roles assigned to the identity”, and the limitations in claims 3 and 12 in the US Patent 12289247 “wherein the graph comprises a tree structure representing the one or more granted permissions, and wherein the one or more granted permissions correspond to a role assigned the identity” have similar subject matters.
Claims 7 and 17 are non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 19 of US Patent 12289247.
Limitations of the claims 7 and 17 in the instant application 19095483 “in response to authorizing the request, providing the access to the resource”, and the limitations in claims 1, 10 and 19 in the US Patent 12289247 “based on the authorizing the request, providing the access to the resource” have similar subject matters.
The claims 7 and 17 of the instant application state limitation “causing display of a user interface that includes an indication of an authorization status.” which is not stated explicitly in the US Patent 12289247, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 12289247 in view of (“Gudmundsson”, US 20160055698 A1) in order to display the status and indication of the user accessing the resource ([0054] display an access granted indication as part of user interface 109 of the property 113. For a response denying the access request, the server 102 may send a request to the computing system 103 of the property 113 to display an access denied indication as part of the user interface 109 of the property 113.) because it would provide notifications to the administrators when monitoring services detect unauthorized access ([0006])
Claims 8 and 18 are non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 13 of US Patent 12289247.
Limitations of the claims 8 and 18 in the instant application 19095483 “wherein the identity is one of a user, an application, or a credential,”, and the limitations in claims 4 and 13 in the US Patent 12289247 “wherein the identity comprises any one of: a user, an application, or a credential” have similar subject matters.
The claims 8 and 8 of the instant application state limitation “storing the second graph in a volatile memory for a duration of a session initiated for the identity” which is not stated explicitly in the US Patent 12289247, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 12289247 in view of (“Venable”, US 20230208840 A1) in order to show and identify connections and pathways between users to resource based on different policies ([0073] Fig. 5, Fig. 1, Graph Database server, a relationship graph for the user is received from the graph database. The relationship graph may identify connections and pathways between users to resources based on different policies for the users and/or resources, as well as other objects for the corresponding computing team) because it would help provide data access rules and permissions within computing systems ([0003])
Claims 9 and 19 are non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 14 of US Patent 12289247.
Limitations of the claims 9 and 19 in the instant application 19095483 “wherein each of the plurality of granted permissions is associated with a read action, a create action, an update action, a delete action, or a do action”, and the limitations in claims 5 and 14 in the US Patent 12289247 “wherein each of the one or more granted permissions is associated with a valid action including any one of: read, create, update, delete, list, or do” have similar subject matters.
Claim 10 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 15 of US Patent 12289247.
Limitations of the claim 10 in the instant application 19095483 “wherein the request is received via a user interface or an Application Programming Interface (API)”, and the limitations in claims 6 and 15 in the US Patent 12289247 “wherein the request comprises an API request” have similar subject matters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if overcoming the double patenting rejection set forth in this office action.
The reason for the allowable subject matter in claims 1, 11, and 20.
The closed prior arts (“Venable”, US 20230208840 A1), (“VANDENBROUCK”, US 20190332789 A1), (“Bebee”, US 10432639 B1) fairly fail to teach or suggest obtaining a command to control access to an object, producing a first data structure based on the web command, the first data structure dedicate a server to control and grant access rights to the objects within the first data structure, generating a second partial data structure showing the granted access right matching the permission by the server in the first data structure, the second partial data structure has a group of permissions granted to a resource associated with the command, provide allowability access to that object based on the matched and defined permission.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FADI HAJ SAID whose telephone number is (571)272-2833. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, John Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FADI HAJ SAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights