DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 6/10/2026 and 07/15/2026 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 claims at issue 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); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://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 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,647,420.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 12,647,420. Please see the table below:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,647,420
1.A computer system comprising:
a processor;
a communications module coupled to the processor; and
a memory module coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to: receive a first request to access a first resource, the first request associated with an entity; determine that the entity has access to a second resource; and
in response to determining that the entity has access to the second resource: enable access to the first resource; and
place a technological lock on the second resource.
1.A computer system comprising:
a processor;
a communications module coupled to the processor; and
a memory module coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to:
receive a first request to access a first borrowed resource in association with a first account, the first account being a borrowed resource account which lends resources;
in response to receiving the first request, determine that a second account that is associated with the first account, by being associated with a common entity, has access to a first owned resource corresponding to the first borrowed resource, wherein the first owned resource is an equivalent resource to the first borrowed resource and distinct from the first borrowed resource; and in response to determining that the second account has access to the first owned resource: allow access to the first borrowed resource via the first account; and
place a technological lock on the first owned resource, wherein the technological lock prevents use of the first owned resource while the first borrowed resource is in use.
11. A method comprising: receiving a first request to access a first resource, the first request associated with an entity; in response to receiving the first request, determining that the entity has access to a second resource; and in response to determining that the entity has access to the second resource: enabling access to the first resource; and placing a technological lock on the second resource.
20. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to: receive a first request to access a first resource, the first request associated with an entity; in response to receiving the first request, determine that the entity has access to a second resource; and in response to determining that the entity has access to the second resource: enabling access to the first resource; and place a technological lock on the second resource.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 .
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11-13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (US Patent Application No. 20190007399) (Hereinafter Stevens) in view of Je et al. (US Patent Application No. 20110107096) (Hereinafter Je).
As per claim 1, Stevens discloses a computer system comprising:
a processor;
a communications module coupled to the processor; and
a memory module coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to (para 0062, Computer system 700 may include a bus 702 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, and a processor 704 coupled with bus 702, and configured to execute computer-executable instructions stored, for example, in a main memory):
receive a first request to access a first resource, the first request associated with an entity (para 14, 18, owner could also be a business entity , borrower account);
determine that the entity (para 14,owner could also be a business entity) has access to a second resource ( para 16, 20, The resource 130 can be one or more devices, applications, data or any combination of those; the owner 110 sends a request for providing access to the resource to the resource manager 170, which, in response creates the delegate 160 for the specific relationship between the owner's account and the borrower's account. This shows the second account is associated with the first account.); and
in response to determining that the entity (para 14, 18, owner could also be a business entity) has access to the second resource:
enable access to the first resource ( para 37, These may include checking for permission, in at least, one implementation, to determine that the owner has permission to grant, access to a borrower… The application then notifies the owner, at 212, that access is, granted to the borrower). The operation’s order of steps implies that allowing access to the first borrowed resource is in response to the previous step of determining the second account has access to the first owned resource); and
place a technological lock on the second resource (para 22, To allow specifying the types of actions available and/or time limitations placed on the borrower, in one implementation, the delegate 160 includes one or more attributes; Table 1: TABLE 1 Name Type Format Description schedule string uuid This is an optional delegate access schedule. target array uuid An optional resource target restriction. If included, the borrower cannot operate on resources not listed here. condition string predicate An optional predicate that can restrict access by user, request or target resource attribute values. The table values shown here teach restrictions which describe the delegate as a technical lock).
Stevens does not explicitly disclose place a technological lock. However, Je discloses place a technological lock (fig 4, para 24, creates a forward lock in DRM content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stevens and Je. The motivation would have been inter-account resource access management to maintain legality with restricted digital goods.
The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims.
As per claim 2, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition Stevens discloses wherein the technological lock prevents use of the second resource while the first resource is in use (para 22, To allow specifying the types of actions available and/or time limitations placed on the borrower, in one implementation, the delegate 160 includes one or more attributes; Table 1: TABLE 1 Name Type Format Description schedule string uuid This is an optional delegate access schedule. target array uuid An optional resource target restriction. If included, the borrower cannot operate on resources not listed here. condition string predicate An optional predicate that can restrict access by user, request or target resource attribute values. The table values shown here teach restrictions which describe the delegate as a technical lock).
As per claim 3, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition Je discloses wherein the first resource is one or more of a computing resource, a resource reflected in a database, and a digital good (para 5, DRM content).
As per claim 5, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition Stevens discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer system to:
after enabling access to the first resource, send an electronic notification to a resource usage tracking server, the electronic notification indicating that access to the first resource has been enabled (para 37, These may include checking for permission, in at least, one implementation, to determine that the owner has permission to grant, access to a borrower… The application then notifies the owner, at 212, that access is, granted to the borrower. The operation’s order of steps implies that allowing access to the first borrowed resource is in response to the previous step of determining the second account has access to the first owned resource.)
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (US Patent Application No. 20190007399) (Hereinafter Stevens) in view of Je et al. (US Patent Application No. 20110107096) (Hereinafter Je) in further view of Coronel et al. (US Patent Application No. 20140283129) (Hereinafter Coronel) .
As per claim 6, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Stevens in view of Je does not specifically disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer system to:
detect occurrence of a trigger condition ; and
in response to detecting occurrence of the trigger condition: transfer at least part of the second resource to at least partially offset usage of the first resource.
However, Coronel discloses detect occurrence of a trigger condition (para 8, A processor determines… an indication is provided that the access rights to the digital good are available for transfer from the account of the first user. Determining an indication is provided is equivalent to detect of the claim) ; and
in response to detecting occurrence of the trigger condition: transfer at least part of the second resource to at least partially offset usage of the first resource (para 5, Upon receiving a request to transfer a digital good from one user to another, the marketplace transfers the digital good from the transferor's digital store to the transferee's digital store). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stevens and Je with Coronel. The motivation would have been inter-account resource access management to maintain legality with restricted digital goods.
As per claim 7, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 6, above. In addition, Coronel discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer system to:
send an electronic indication to a resource usage tracking server, the electronic indication based on the transfer of the at least part of the second resource (para 27, The network resource server 108, cloud data store server 116, or another server or device acting as a proxy for the cloud data store server 116 may receive the request),.
As per claim 8, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 6, above. In addition, Coronel discloses wherein the trigger condition occurs when a quantity of resources borrowed satisfies defined criteria (para 32, The access rights associated with a limited release quantity may function as any other access rights. For example, access rights associated with a limited release quantity may be fully transferrable, so long as the total quantity of access rights in users' accounts does not exceed the limited quantity of access rights available).
.
As per claim 9, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 6, above. In addition, Coronel discloses wherein the trigger condition occurs at a scheduled time (para 23, a schedule is an attribute that can indicate a time period during which access should be granted to the borrower 140 through the delegate 160. For example, for a front-door lock resource, the schedule may indicate that access is only granted from 8 am-5 pm).
As per claim 10, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Je discloses wherein the placing the technological lock on the second resource includes one or more of placing a digital rights management lock on the second resource, preventing a transfer of the second resource and placing a hold on the second resource (fig 4, para 24, creates a forward lock in DRM content).
Aa per claims 11-13, and 15-19, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claims 1-3, and 5-10, above.
Aa per claim 20, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claims 1, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ringewald (US Patent No. 8364595 B1) teaches an electronic marketplace for used digital objects. Digital objects including e-books, audio, video, computer applications, etc., purchased from an original vendor by a user are stored in a user's personalized data store. Content in a personalized data store may be accessible to the user via transfer such as moving, streaming, or download. When the user no longer desires to retain the right to access the now-used digital content, the user may move the used digital content to another user's personalized data store when permissible and the used digital content is deleted from the originating user's personalized data store. When a digital object exceeds a threshold number of moves or downloads, the ability to move may be deemed impermissible and suspended or terminated. Additionally or alternatively, a collection of objects may be assembled from individual digital objects stored in the personalized data stores of different users, and moved to a user's personalized data store.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A SIDDIQI whose telephone number is (571)272-3976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-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, Carl G Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/MOHAMMAD A SIDDIQI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights