DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application with case number 19/235,469, filed on 6/11/2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 8 and 15 are in independent form.
The examiner notes that Abstract does not include any legal phraseology and is less than 15 lines.
The examiner notes that the Specification does not include any URL link(s) and any trademarks requiring capitalization.
The examiner notes that all claims include no limitations that invoke 35 USC § 112 6th paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 11, and 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: “resources in associated with…” has grammatical error (…association with…). Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 15 is directed to a computer program product compromising computer-readable program code capable of being executed by one or more processors and the permissions management system is considered by the examiner as software/program per se. Program/Software per se does not fall under one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. The examiner suggests for the computer program product to include a non-transitory computer readable media comprising computer-readable program code.
Dependent claims 16-20 does not introduce any other patent eligible subject matter to the body of claim(s) and thus are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 15.
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-l.jsp.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims 1, 8, and 15 of US Patent No. 12,010,120.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the disclosure of each application or patent listed above and because both applications disclose method, system, and memory for managing permissions in an on-demand computing services environment.
Limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 of instant application are included in/similar to the limitations of claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,010,120 The comparison of the two claims is presented in the table below:
Claim 1 of Instant Application 19/235,469
Claim 1 of US Patent 12,010,120
1. A method implemented across computing environments, the method comprising:
assigning, via an identity and access management system to one or more user accounts associated with a first one of the computing environments, one or more
access groups of a plurality of access groups associated with the computing environments, each of the plurality of access groups corresponding to a respective one or more of a plurality of actions permitted to be performed on resources by a group of users;
monitoring, in near real time, use of resources by the one or more user
accounts;
detecting, via a machine learning algorithm based on the monitoring of user activity, one or more anomalies in the use of the one or more access groups by the one or more user accounts;
in response to detecting the anomalies, creating a notification associated
with the detected anomalies; and
providing, to an entity associated with the first computing environment, the notification in association with identity and access management tools configurable to manage configuration of the one or more access groups for the one or more user accounts based on the notification.
A method implemented in an on-demand computing services environment, the method comprising:
granting, to one or more user accounts, a first permission set including one or more permissions of a plurality of permissions associated with the on-demand computing services environment, each of the plurality of permissions corresponding to a respective one or more of a plurality of actions permitted to be performed by the on-demand computing services environment, wherein a machine learning classification procedure is used to generate the first permission set from the plurality of permissions associated with the on-demand computing services environment;
monitoring use of the one or more permissions by the one or more user accounts;
determining, based on the monitoring, one or more atypical permission set usages by the one or more user accounts;
in response to the determining, identifying a designated permission set based, at least in part, on the determined atypical permission set usages; and
recommending that the first permission set be updated to the designated permission set for the one or more user accounts.
Limitations of claims 8 and 15 of instant application are similar to the limitations of claim 1 and thus claims 8 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 1.
Limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 of instant application are included in/similar to the limitations of claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,355,776. The comparison of the two claims is presented in the table below:
Claim 1 of Instant Application 19/235,469
Claim 1 of US Patent 12,355,776
1. A method implemented across computing environments, the method comprising:
assigning, via an identity and access management system to one or more user accounts associated with a first one of the computing environments, one or more
access groups of a plurality of access groups associated with the computing environments, each of the plurality of access groups corresponding to a respective one or more of a plurality of actions permitted to be performed on resources by a group of users;
monitoring, in near real time, use of resources by the one or more user
accounts;
detecting, via a machine learning algorithm based on the monitoring of user activity, one or more anomalies in the use of the one or more access groups by the one or more user accounts;
in response to detecting the anomalies, creating a notification associated
with the detected anomalies; and
providing, to an entity associated with the first computing environment, the notification in association with identity and access management tools configurable to manage configuration of the one or more access groups for the one or more user accounts based on the notification.
A method implemented across multi-cloud environments, the method comprising:
granting, via an authorization system to one or more user accounts associated with a first one of the environments, one or more permissions of a plurality of permissions associated with the multi-cloud environments, each of the plurality of permissions corresponding to a respective one or more of a plurality of actions permitted to be performed on resources;
continuously monitoring use of the one or more permissions by the one or more user accounts;
detecting, based on the continuous monitoring and a machine learning procedure, one or more atypical permission usages by the one or more user accounts;
in response to detecting the atypical permission usages, creating a notification associated with the detected atypical permission usages; and
providing, to an entity associated with the first environment, the notification in association with permissions management tools configurable to modify or revoke the one or more permissions for the one or more user accounts based on the alert.
Limitations of claims 8 and 15 of instant application are similar to the limitations of claim 1 and thus claims 8 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation "in response to detecting the anomalies, creating a notification associated with the detected anomalies" in the fourth limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests "in response to detecting the one or more anomalies, creating a notification associated with the detected anomalies."
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation "providing, to an entity associated with the first computing environment, the notification…" in the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests “providing, to an entity associated with the first one of the computing environments, the notification…"
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claims 1, 8, and 15, prior art of record and further search does not explicitly teach “detecting, via a machine learning algorithm based on the monitoring of user activity, one or more anomalies in the use of the one or more access groups by the one or more user accounts; in response to detecting the anomalies, creating a notification associated with the detected anomalies; and providing, to an entity associated with the first computing environment, the notification in association with identity and access management tools configurable to manage configuration of the one or more access groups for the one or more user accounts based on the notification” in claims 1, 8, and 15, in view of all other limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE K SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3260. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am – 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7291.
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.
/HEE K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights