DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 19/222817 filed on May 29, 2025 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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.
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 .
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, found at http:/www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax, which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Applicant is also encouraged to contact the Examiner for an Interview, should the Applicant determine that clarifying and further illustrating the distinguishing features of the instant application may further the prosecution.
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 14 recite “the portion” or “the replica” which should be “the replica of the portion”. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9641530, 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 1057266, 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10298579, 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10630685, 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10601827, 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11171957, 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11159527, 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12058132, 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12301570. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Instant Application appears to be a broader version of the cited US Patents as they are all drawn towards a receiving/transmitting a directory that associates references with a user account information, authenticating a user based on the directory, and providing an indication that the user is assigned a permission to access an IT resource.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/201706 (reference application) and claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/770476 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are drawn towards receiving a portion of a directory, authenticating a user based on the directory, and providing an indication that the user is assigned a permission to access a resource.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 8 recite receiving a portion of a directory that contains references to IT resources, authenticating a user based on the portion of the directory, and providing an indication that the user has a permission to access the IT resource.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea drawn to performing a mental process such as concepts performed in the human mind or by hand but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” to perform the steps (in claim 8), nothing in the claim precludes the steps from merely being the performance of a mental process. For example, but for the “processor” language, receiving data (a portion of a directory), authenticating a user, and providing data (an indication) in the context of the claims encompasses the performance of the steps by a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the abstract idea of a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a processor” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 are also rejected for the same reason as cited above for not reciting any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 15 recites transmitting and receiving data.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea drawn to performing a mental process such as concepts performed in the human mind or by hand but for the recitation of generic computer components and generic computer functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional. That is, other than the recitation of generic computer components and generic computer functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from merely being the performance of a mental process. For example, receiving data and transmitting data in the context of the claims encompasses the performance of the steps by a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the abstract idea of a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – sending and receiving IT resources. However, sending and receiving IT resources is considered as generic computer functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional as any computer can send and receive data. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component using generic computer functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16-20 are also rejected for the same reason as cited above for not reciting any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim (US 7181523) in view of Kranz (US 2014/0173694).
As per claim 15, Sim discloses A method for information technology (IT) resource management, comprising:
receiving, from a device that manages a directory that comprises … a first portion of the directory and a second portion of the directory, wherein: the first portion of the directory comprising references to a first set of IT resources of the plurality of IT resources associated with a first organization of the plurality of organizations, and the second portion of the directory comprising references to a second set of IT resources of the plurality of IT resources associated with a second organization of the plurality of organizations (Sim, col. 1 lines 20-44 and col. 1 line 64-col. 2 line 6, teaches a content server, or origin server, that contains data (IT resources) such as web pages, documents or multimedia data to be used by multiple customers. Sim, abstract and col. 2 line 54-col. 3 line 7, teaches edge servers that can provide content to the users to minimize delivery times as they are located in close proximity to the user. Sim, col. 3 lines 5-10, teaches sending data from the origin server to the edge servers by either caching or mirroring. This involves sending multiple sets, or portions, or data to the edge server to be accessed by multiple users. Sim, cols. 3-6, recites further details regarding the caching and mirroring. Sim, col. 1 lines 41-44, also teaches that the data can be transferred to the edge server before or after the user request. Sim, col. 3 lines 35-52, teaches processing requests for multiple users. Therefore, Sim teaches storing data from a first user/organization and data from a second user/organization on an edge server to be able to process the users requests faster.);
transmitting a first replica of the first portion of the directory to a first local device of the first organization; and transmitting a second replica of the second portion of the directory to a second local device of the second organization (Sim, col. 3 lines 35-61, teaches the proxy/edge server receiving a request for data. The edge server checks to see if it contains the requests data. If the edge server contains the data it will respond by sending the requested data to the user. As the edge server can process requests for multiple users, it would have been obvious for the requested data to be provided to the multiple users.)
Sim teaches using a content delivery system to distribute the content of multiple users to edge servers to provide the data to the end users and minimize the delivery times. However, Sim does not specifically teach that the directory “comprises a mapping between a plurality of users of a plurality of organizations and a plurality of IT resources”.
Kranz discloses a directory that comprises a mapping between a plurality of users of a plurality of organizations and a plurality of IT resources … transmitting a first replica of the first portion of the directory to a first local device of the first organization; and transmitting a second replica of the second portion of the directory to a second local device of the second organization (Kranz, paragraph 23, teaches having multiple tenants/organizations that are made up of multiple users/employees of the tenant/organization. Kranz also teaches having a governance map that shows which user(s) are allowed to access a particular cloud hosted application. Kranz, paragraph 23, also teaches providing the users of the multiple tenants/organizations with access to their requested data based on the governance map.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the teachings of Kranz with the teachings of Sim. Sim teaches having multiple edge servers process data requests for multiple users and also teaches load balancing those requests. Kranz teaches a multi-tenancy system where multiple organizations each containing multiple users share cloud hosted applications where there is a mapping that shows which user(s) are allowed to access each particular cloud hosted application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have improved upon the teachings of Sim by adding the teachings of Kranz to use the edge servers and load balancing of Sim on the multi-tenancy system of Kranz for the purpose of distributing the content of the multiple organizations to the edge servers to allow the data to reach the end-users more quickly and reduce the delivery times of the cloud hosted applications.
As per claim 16, Sim in view of Kranz discloses The method of claim 15, further comprising: receiving a request for the first portion of the directory or the second portion of the directory, wherein the first replica or the second replica is transmitted based at least in part on the request (Sim, col. 3 lines 35-61, teaches the proxy/edge server receiving a request for data. The edge server checks to see if it contains the requests data. If the edge server contains the data it will respond by sending the requested data to the user. As the edge server can process requests for multiple users, it would have been obvious for the requested data to be provided to the multiple users. Kranz, paragraph 23, teaches having multiple tenants/organizations that are made up of multiple users/employees of the tenant/organization. Kranz also teaches having a governance map that shows which user(s) are allowed to access a particular cloud hosted application. Kranz, paragraph 23, also teaches providing the users of the multiple tenants/organizations with access to their requested data based on the governance map.)
As per claim 17, Sim in view of Kranz discloses The method of claim 15, wherein the first local device comprises one or more devices controlled by the first organization, one or more servers controlled by the first organization, or any combination thereof (Sim, col. 3 lines 35-61, teaches the proxy/edge server receiving a request for data. The edge server checks to see if it contains the requests data. If the edge server contains the data it will respond by sending the requested data to the user. As the edge server can process requests for multiple users, it would have been obvious for the requested data to be provided to the multiple users. Kranz, paragraph 23, teaches having multiple tenants/organizations that are made up of multiple users/employees of the tenant/organization. Kranz also teaches having a governance map that shows which user(s) are allowed to access a particular cloud hosted application. Kranz, paragraph 23, also teaches providing the users of the multiple tenants/organizations with access to their requested data based on the governance map.)
As per claim 18, Sim in view of Kranz discloses The method of claim 15, wherein the second local device comprises one or more devices controlled by the second organization, one or more servers controlled by the second organization, or any combination thereof (Sim, col. 3 lines 35-61, teaches the proxy/edge server receiving a request for data. The edge server checks to see if it contains the requests data. If the edge server contains the data it will respond by sending the requested data to the user. As the edge server can process requests for multiple users, it would have been obvious for the requested data to be provided to the multiple users. Kranz, paragraph 23, teaches having multiple tenants/organizations that are made up of multiple users/employees of the tenant/organization. Kranz also teaches having a governance map that shows which user(s) are allowed to access a particular cloud hosted application. Kranz, paragraph 23, also teaches providing the users of the multiple tenants/organizations with access to their requested data based on the governance map.)
As per claim 19, Sim in view of Kranz discloses The method of claim 15, wherein the first portion of the directory indicates a permission for a first user of the first organization to access a first IT resource of the plurality of IT resources (Sim, col. 3 lines 35-61, teaches the proxy/edge server receiving a request for data. The edge server checks to see if it contains the requests data. If the edge server contains the data it will respond by sending the requested data to the user. As the edge server can process requests for multiple users, it would have been obvious for the requested data to be provided to the multiple users. Kranz, paragraph 23, teaches having multiple tenants/organizations that are made up of multiple users/employees of the tenant/organization. Kranz also teaches having a governance map that shows which user(s) are allowed to access a particular cloud hosted application. Kranz, paragraph 23, also teaches providing the users of the multiple tenants/organizations with access to their requested data based on the governance map. If the requested data is provided to the user that would indicate that the user contains permission to access the data.)
As per claim 20, Sim in view of Kranz discloses The method of claim 15, wherein the second portion of the directory indicates a permission for a second user of the second organization to access a second IT resource of the plurality of IT resources (Sim, col. 3 lines 35-61, teaches the proxy/edge server receiving a request for data. The edge server checks to see if it contains the requests data. If the edge server contains the data it will respond by sending the requested data to the user. As the edge server can process requests for multiple users, it would have been obvious for the requested data to be provided to the multiple users. Kranz, paragraph 23, teaches having multiple tenants/organizations that are made up of multiple users/employees of the tenant/organization. Kranz also teaches having a governance map that shows which user(s) are allowed to access a particular cloud hosted application. Kranz, paragraph 23, also teaches providing the users of the multiple tenants/organizations with access to their requested data based on the governance map. If the requested data is provided to the user that would indicate that the user contains permission to access the data.)
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Adams (US 2013/0254847) – teaches synchronizing the directory data between the on-premises directory and the cloud directory.
Fang (US 6243816) – teaches a single sign-on with a database to store the user account information.
He (US 5944824) – teaches single sign-on system that stores multiple sets of user account information for a single user.
Hardt (US 2003/0229783) – teaches single sign-on for a plurality of services.
Adler (US 2015/0286816) – teaches a user updating their profile by registering with a new service.
Mantel (US 10382445) – teaches a multitenant directory including adding new user information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B KING whose telephone number is (571)270-7310. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 5712728878. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/John B King/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights