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 .
Claims 1-12 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent Claim 1, the acronym term “API” in line 5 must be written out.
Independent Claim 4, the acronym term “API” in line 2 must be written out.
Independent Claim 7, the acronym term “API” in line 5 must be written out.
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 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. 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-14 of U. S. Patent No. 12,368,702 B2. Although the conflicting claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined claims contain elements of the patent claims, therefore, the examined claim is anticipated by the patent claim as follows:
Current Application No. 19/271,863
US Patent No. 12,368,702 B2
Independent Claim 1
Independent Claim 1
Independent Claim 4
Independent Claim 5
Independent Claim 7
Independent Claim 9
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pitre et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/098055 A1) listed in IDS dated 07/21/2025 hereinafter Pitre.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Pitre discloses an identity and access management system and a corresponding method (para 0004, (“IAM”) system) comprising:
at least one processor (para 0196, processor); and
memory (para 0196, a memory) comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (para 0196, a memory for storing information and instructions to be executed by processor), cause the processor to:
receive an API token request for an authorization token to authorize an application function associated with a target API of an application (para 0130, IDCS specifies three types of tenancies: customer tenancy, client tenancy, and user tenancy. Customer or resource tenancy specifies who the customer of IDCS is (i.e., for whom is the work being performed). Client tenancy specifies which client application is trying to access data (i.e., what application is doing the work). User tenancy specifies which user is using the application to access data (i.e., by whom is the work being performed)), (para 0135, For example, a client that belongs to “tenant 1” may execute a request to get a token for “tenant 2” specifying a user in “tenant 3.” As another example, a user living in “tenant 1” may need to perform an action in an application owned by “tenant 2”. Thus, the user needs to go to the resource namespace of “tenant 2” and request a token for themselves), and (para 0136, In one example, a client in “tenant 1” may request an access token for a user in “tenant 2” to access an application in “tenant 3”. The client may do so by invoking an OAuth request for the token);
determine identity information from the API token request (para 0136, The client identifies itself……. The client assertion includes a client ID);
retrieve attributes associated with the identity information (para 0136, The client assertion includes a client ID (e.g., “client 1”) and the client tenancy “tenant 1”. As “client 1” in “tenant 1”, the client has the right to invoke a request for a token on “tenant 3”);
identify the target API and an API function profile associated with the target API for the application function (para 0135, a user living in “tenant 1” may need to perform an action in an application owned by “tenant 2”);
filter the attributes associated with the identity information based on the API function profile (fig. 13 and para 0135, delegation of authority is accomplished by identifying “who” can do “what” to “whom.”);
generate the authorization token according to the filtered attributes; and transmit the authorization token in response to the API token request (para 0136, The access token that is generated will be issued in the context of the target tenancy which is the application tenancy (“tenant 3”) and will include the user tenancy (“tenant 2”)).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Pitre discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the attributes are retrieved from a master data management store configured to store various attributes of various applications and users (fig. 12, para 0191-0192).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Pitre discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the authorization token enables only the application function associated with the target API from among a plurality of application functions associated with the application of the target API (fig. 9-10, 13, 16A-B, para 0135-0136).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 would be allowable if the Terminal Disclaimer is filed to overcome the Double Patenting rejection, set forth in the Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOTRAN N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-8156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5 ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached on 571-270-3351. 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.
/BAOTRAN N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights