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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 1 and 11, Line 5, “…based on a pre-defined process access policies” should read “based on
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the application regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “said pre-defined access control policies” in line 13, as to whether these pre-defined access control policies are referring to the pre-defined process access policies or pre-defined application control policies recited earlier in the claimed limitation. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “an alternate access token” in lines 2-3, as to whether this alternate access token is equivalent to the alternate/alternative token recited in the independent claim. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “said alternate access token” in line 3, as to whether this alternate access token is equivalent to the alternate/alternative token recited in the independent claim. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “an application control settings data” in lines 3-4, as to whether this settings data is equivalent to the existing application control settings data that is obtained earlier in the claimed limitation. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “application control settings data” in line 6, as to whether this settings data is equivalent to the existing application control settings data that is obtained earlier in the claimed limitations. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “said alternate access token” in lines 9-10, as to whether this alternate access token is equivalent to the alternate/alternative token recited in the independent claim. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “primary process token” in line 11, as to whether this primary process token is the same as the primary access token recited in the independent claim. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “said pre-defined access control policies” in line 13, as to whether these pre-defined access control policies are referring to the pre-defined process access policies or pre-defined application control policies recited earlier in the claimed limitation. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “said alternate access token and setting an alternate access token” in line 3, as to whether this alternate access token is the same as the alternate/alternative token recited in the independent claim. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “an application control settings data” in lines 3-4, as to whether this settings data is equivalent to the existing application control settings data that is obtained earlier in the claimed limitation. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “application control settings data” in line 6, as to whether this settings data is equivalent to the existing application control settings data that is obtained earlier in the claimed limitations. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “said alternate access token” in lines 9-10, as to what alternate access token the claim is referring to. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “primary process token” in line 11, as to whether this primary process token is the same as the primary access token recited in the independent claim. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “an alternate access token” in line 1, as to whether this alternate access token is the same as the alternate access token recited in dependent claim 14. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15, 17 and 19-20, the claims are rejected because they are dependent to a previous rejected claim.
Appropriate correction(s) is/are 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 § 2146 et seq. 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of issued Patent 12,488,083. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the reference patent covers all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and, as such, anticipates claim 1 of the instant application.
The dependent claims of the issued patent contain every element of the dependent claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate all of the dependent claims of the instant application.
Instant Application No. 19/277,229
Reference Patent No. 12,488,083
Claim 1: A method for implementing a privilege management agent in an operating system having User Account Control (UAC), the privilege management agent having pre-defined application control policies and an application control service (ACS), the privilege management agent used to process elevation requests to provide a token to allow a process running under a user account to run as an elevated process based on a pre-defined process access policies, the method comprising:
after a process having a primary access token is launched without an elevation request, said ACS evaluating said process and said pre-defined process access policies for a match which would allow said process to run as a process with elevation,
if said ACS does not find a matching policy, allowing said process to run with a restricted access token;
if said ACS finds as matching policy, applying said matching policy to said process to allow said process to run with elevated rights;
wherein one of said pre-defined access control policies creates an alternative token for use by an injected application control code;
said method further comprising: injecting said alternate token into said process;
if said process calls an API function that is under application control, said injected application control code intercepting said API function call and transferring execution of said process to a wrapper function;
said wrapper function evaluating settings provided by said application control policy;
said wrapper function returning an access denied error if said settings do not allow the function call to proceed;
said wrapper function allowing the function call to proceed, if said settings allow the function call to proceed.
Claim 1: A method for implementing a privilege management agent in an operating system having User Account Control (UAC), the privilege management agent having pre-defined application control policies and an application control service (ACS), the privilege management agent used to process elevation requests to provide a token to allow a process running under a user account to run as an elevated process based on a pre-defined process access policies, the method comprising:
after a process having a primary access token is launched without an elevation request, said ACS evaluating said process and said pre-defined process access policies for a match which would allow said process to run as a process with elevation,
if said ACS does not find a matching policy, allowing said process to run with a restricted access token;
if said ACS finds a matching policy, applying said matching policy to said process to allow said process to run with elevated rights;
wherein one of said pre-defined access policies selectively restricts said primary access token and/or creates an alternate access token for use by an injected application control code,
said method further comprising: temporarily halting said process, said ACS injecting said application control code into said process
if said alternate access token was created, injecting said alternate access token into said process;
resuming said process;
if said process calls an API function that is under application control, said injected application control intercepting said API function call and transferring execution of said process to a wrapper function;
said wrapper function evaluating settings provided by said application control;
said wrapper function returning an access denied error if said settings do not allow the function call to proceed;
said wrapper function allowing the function call to proceed, if said settings allow the function call.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
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, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. 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.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights