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
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/20/26.
The applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims were considered and results as
follow: THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claims 1-2, 9-10 and 15-16 have been amended. No claims have been
cancelled. No claims have been added. As a result, claims 1-20 now pending in this
office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 03/20/26 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application
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.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of
US Patent No. 12, 306, 815. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they
are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 12, 306, 815 recite the elements of Claims 1-20 of the Instant Application No. 19/184,310.
Both claim features of the instant application 19/184,310 and US Patent No.
12,306,815 can be compared as follows:
Instant Application 19/184,310
US Patent No. 12, 306, 815
1. A computer-implemented method of managing a node-based graph, comprising: causing display of a graphical user interface comprising: a plurality of nodes displayed with one or more visual formats indicating one or more permission levels granted to a selected user to access resources represented by the plurality of nodes; one or more edges drawn between pairs of nodes of the plurality of nodes and indicating dependencies between resources represented by the pairs of nodes; and an information panel comprising an indication of a selected restricted resource corresponding to a selected node, the indication of the restricted resource comprising a link for requesting access to the restricted resource on behalf of the selected user; activating the link responsive to a selection of the indication of the restricted resource via the graphical user interface; and requesting, via the link, for the selected user to be granted access to the restricted resource corresponding to represented by the selected node.
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method of processing and managing a node-based and dependency-based data graph, the method comprising: generating user interface data for rendering a graphical user interface comprising: a selectable field for selecting a user; a plurality of nodes having one or more node types, wherein the nodes of the plurality of nodes represent pre-existing resources, wherein the plurality of nodes are displayed with various visual formats corresponding to the one or more node types; and one or more directed edges drawn between respective pairs of nodes of the plurality of nodes and indicating resource wherein the one or more node types are based on existing permission levels previously granted to a selected user to access the pre-existing resources represented by the plurality of nodes, wherein the node type of a given node depends on the selected user; receiving a selection via the selectable field to indicate the of a first selected user for which to view indicate, via the graphical user interface, the existing permission levels previously granted to the first selected user to access the pre-existing resources represented by the plurality of nodes via the graphical user interface; determining a display scheme associated with the plurality of nodes, wherein the display scheme is based, at least in part, on the one or more nodes types and specifies how nodes of different node types are displayed with different visual formats; and displaying the plurality of nodes in the graphical user interface with the various visual formats based on the one or more node types to indicate the existing permission levels previously granted to the first selected user display scheme; and updating the various visual formats of the plurality of nodes that are simultaneously displayed within the graphical user interface responsive to a second selection via the selectable field of a second selected user for which to indicate the existing permission levels previously granted to the second selected user to access the pre-existing resources represented by the plurality of nodes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 05/05/25 has been
considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
5. 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.
6. 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, 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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mallozzi et al. (US 2016/0191534 A1) in view of SHAHINE et al. (US US 2018/0343243 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mallozzi a computer-implemented method of managing a node-based graph, comprising, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0078], connection information 220 includes information about edges that connect pairs of nodes in a graph database):
causing display of a graphical user interface comprising, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0109], selecting user-interface element 414 displays a GUI):
a plurality of nodes displayed with one or more visual formats indicating one or more permission levels granted to a selected user to access resources, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0101], The GUI 400 allows users to provide user inputs (e.g., selection of user-interface elements 404) that specify permissions for accessing resources of the client device…and user-interface elements 404 for specifying permissions and conditions under which to grant or deny permission to access device resources), represented by the plurality of nodes, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0075], The graph database includes a plurality of nodes);
one or more edges drawn between pairs of nodes of the plurality of nodes and indicating dependencies between resources represented by the pairs of nodes, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0078], information about edges that connect pairs of nodes in a graph database. In some embodiments, an edge connecting a pair of nodes represents a relationship between the pair of nodes); and
an information panel comprising an indication of a restricted resource corresponding to by a selected node, the indication of the restricted resource, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0016], determining, in response to the first request, that the second application is not currently authorized to allow the first application to access the resource, See Mallozzi paragraph [0080], The page in the social-networking service that corresponds to the entity at the other node may include, for example, a selectable “like,” “check in,” or “add to favorites” icon), comprising a link for requesting access to the restricted resource on behalf of the selected user, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0016], determining, in response to the first request, that the second application is not currently authorized to allow the first application to access the resource, See Mallozzi paragraph [0101], The GUI 400 allows users to provide user inputs (e.g., selection of user-interface elements 404) that specify permissions for accessing resources of the client device 104-1. The GUI 400 includes permission request prompt 402);
Mallozzi does not explicitly disclose activating the link responsive to a selection of the indication of the restricted resource via the graphical user interface and requesting, via the link, for the selected user to be granted access to the restricted resource corresponding to the selected node.
However, SHAHINE teaches activating the link responsive to a selection of the indication of the restricted resource via the graphical user interface, (See SHAHINE paragraph [0038], if user raflop is terminated or is otherwise no longer associated with the nasa.gov account, the user will not be able to use the link to access the item of electronic content. As shown in FIG. 2I, user raflop@nasa.gov has opened the e-mail indicating the confirmation code described above with respect to FIG. 2H. Moving to FIG. 2K, the user has returned to user interface 270 (original shown in FIG. 2G) and); and requesting, via the link, for the selected user to be granted access to the restricted resource corresponding to the selected node, (See SHAHINE paragraph [0019], entered confirmation code 4629573 in field 274 and then selected the next user interface element 276. Upon such selection, access control component 106 determines whether the entered access code matches the access code sent by messaging system 108 to the user. If the codes match, access control 106 grants access to the shared item of electronic content, as indicated in the user interface)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify activating the link responsive to a selection of the indication of the restricted resource via the graphical user interface and requesting, via the link, for the selected user to be granted access to the restricted resource corresponding to the selected node of SHAHINE in order to securely upload, access, edit, and delete such electronic files.
Claims 9 and 15 recite the same limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore,
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 2 Mallozzi taught the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as described above. Mallozzi further teaches further comprising:
opening a user interface element providing steps in obtaining access to the restricted resource, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0016], determining, in response to the first request, that the second application is not currently authorized to allow the first application to access the resource), responsive to the selection of the indication of the restricted resource via the graphical user interface, ((See Mallozzi paragraph [0016], determining, in response to the first request, that the second application is not currently authorized to allow the first application to access the resource, See . Mallozzi paragraph [0101], The GUI 400 includes permission request prompt 402, and user-interface elements 404 for specifying permissions and conditions under which to grant or deny permission to access device resources).
Claims 10 and 16 recite the same limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore,
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 3 Mallozzi taught the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as described above. Mallozzi further teaches further comprising:
updating a display scheme criteria from the one or more permission levels to another criteria to cause the one or more visual formats to indicate the another criteria responsive to a user selection via the graphical user interface, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0104], the user may select any of the displayed user-interface elements 404 to specify a permission, Each user-interface element 404 corresponds to a grant or denial of permission for the requesting application (e.g., “Application 01’) to access the device resource. Different user-interface elements 404 correspond to different conditions under which to grant or deny permission to access resources).
Claims 11 and 17 recite the same limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore,
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 4 Mallozzi taught the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as described above. Mallozzi further teaches wherein the one or more permission levels, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0137], users are able to reliably identify which applications request permission to access device resources, while managing such permissions at a granular level), include permission for the selected user to access data of the resources and permission for the selected user to discover existence of the resources, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0101], user-interface elements 404 for specifying permissions and conditions under which to grant or deny permission to access device resources)..
Claims 12 and 18 recite the same limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore,
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 5 Mallozzi taught the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as described above. Mallozzi further teaches wherein the one or more visual formats indicating the one or more permission levels indicate the selected user lacks permission to access data of a resource, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0112], Permissions define the authorization or lack of authorization of applications (e.g., client application modules 336 of client device 104, FIG. 3) to access resources of the electronic devices in which they are stored. Each entry of the permission table 344 identifies the application for which a respective permission is defined (“Application ID”), the resource to which access is granted or denied (“Resource”)), the selected user has permission to view the data of the resource, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0112], user-interface elements 404 for specifying permissions and conditions under which to grant or deny permission to access device resources), the resource lacks data for the selected user to access, or a permission of the selected user is unknown, (See Mallozzi paragraph [0112], Permissions define the authorization or lack of authorization of applications (e.g., client application modules 336 of client device 104, FIG. 3) to access resources of the electronic devices in which they are stored. Each entry of the permission table 344 identifies the application for which a respective permission is defined (“Application ID”), the resource to which access is granted or denied (“Resource”)).
Claims 13 and 19 recite the same limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore,
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 6 Mallozzi taught the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as described above. Mallozzi further teaches further comprising:
receiving a selection of a node in the graphical user interface; and updating the graphical user interface to include a listing of resources to which the selected user needs access in order to access a resource represented by the selected node, , (See Mallozzi paragraph [0109], selecting user-interface element 414 displays a GUI (not shown) which includes a detailed listing of each access request sent by Application 01, where each access request is displayed with data retrieved from stored records (e.g., records table 346 of FIGS. 3 and 5B, which includes the time of the request, the requesting user, the location of the request, etc.)).
Claims 14 and 20 recite the same limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore,
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mallozzi et al. (US 2016/0191534 A1) in view of SHAHINE et al. (US 2018/0343243 A1) and further in view of Jackson, Jr. (US Patent No. 9. 128, 998 B2).
Regarding claim 7 Mallozzi together with SHAHINE, taught the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as described above.
Mallozzi together with SHAHINE, does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more visual formats include node color of the plurality of nodes.
However, Jackson, Jr. teaches wherein the one or more visual formats include node color of the plurality of nodes, (See Jackson, Jr. See Col. 6 lines 40-45, Graphical distinction may be accomplished using a background pattern, a background color, a line weight, a line color, an icon, an animation, and/or any other method of visually differentiating user interface elements from one another. For example, tree nodes associated with a first node type).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify wherein the one or more visual formats include node color of the plurality of nodes of Jackson, Jr, in order to create a graphical representation of the hierarchy including a plurality of strata corresponding to the plurality of node types.
Regarding claim 8 Mallozzi together with SHAHINE taught the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 as described above.
Mallozzi together with SHAHINE does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more visual formats include node location within the graphical user interface or node grouping into superseding nodes,
However, Jackson, Jr. teaches wherein the one or more visual formats include node location within the graphical user interface or node grouping into superseding nodes, (See Jackson, Jr. See Col. 8 lines 33-45, a graphical representation of a hierarchy of data objects in an arrangement that may be referred to as a "grid tree."…a vendor's site may display products by category, company, etc. The location of each product in a product hierarchy may be shown in a tree for the interested viewer, but seldom used).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify wherein the one or more visual formats include node location within the graphical user interface or node grouping into superseding nodes of Jackson, Jr, in order to create a graphical representation of the hierarchy including a plurality of strata corresponding to the plurality of node types.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are
moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusions/Points of Contacts
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUEMEBET GURMU whose telephone number is (571)270-7095. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 5712724078. 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.
/MULUEMEBET GURMU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights