CTFR 17/457,281 CTFR 85707 DETAILED ACTION In a communication received on 17 February 2026, applicants amended claims 1, 12, and 17. Claims 1-3 and 6-21 are pending. A computer readable storage medium herein is interpreted not to be a signal per se. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. With respect to claim 1, the applicants allege, "as supported by at least [¶0071] of specification ... the Cited Art does not teach or suggest each and every limitation" (page 10) with respect to the claimed limitation(s), "the attribute metadata and the access policy are encrypted by an encryption engine controlled by the data owner and the encryption engine is located on the cloud computing system". The examiner respectfully traverses. The arguments/remarks pertain to whether the cited prior art does not disclose owner-controlled encryption engine located on the cloud. The examiner concludes that the cited prior art clearly discloses encrypting message and policy components in the cloud Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language, and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole (See 2141.02 "Differences Between Prior art and Claimed Invention) As best understood by the examiner, "controlled by the data owner" broadly reads on owner-administered keys without the cloud receiving plaintext secrets. Ignatenko, ¶0061, discloses a proxy in the cloud. Ignatenko, ¶0065 and ¶0068, describe the proxy system on the cloud encrypts the received encrypted message to ABE ciphertext. Therefore, Ignatenko discloses an encryption module in the cloud. In conclusion, the applicants argue(s) that the cited prior art does not disclose owner-controlled encryption engine located on the cloud. The examiner traverses because the cited prior art clearly discloses encrypting message and policy components in the cloud. The applicants allege, "The limitation not needing to access the access control system allows for scalability without increasing bandwidth requirements to access a potentially remote access control system. Thus, the Cited Art does not teach or suggest each and every limitation of independent claim 12, and 17" (page 10) with respect to the claimed limitation(s), "comparing the first number to the second number". The examiner respectfully traverses. The arguments/remarks pertain to whether the cited prior art does not disclose compare without ACS access and without decrypting. The examiner concludes that the cited prior art discloses or suggests encrypted policy enforcement without exposing the secret Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language, and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole (See 2141.02 "Differences Between Prior art and Claimed Invention) As best understood by the examiner, the compare activation function without accessing the access control system and without decrypting the metadata/policy elements relates to comparison using hash, HMAC and even searchable indices without making a request to ACS. Aissi discloses the requested objects may be accessed in parallel and without additional authentication ¶0031 with sensitive values corresponding to HMACs ¶0056. Ignatenko further that the secret key belonging to the proxy does not allow decryption of the message ¶0083. The cited prior art clearly discloses that the comparisons can be made without further authentication by an authority. The enforcement occurs directly without having to proxy the request. In conclusion, the applicants argue(s) that the cited prior art does not disclose compare without ACS access and without decrypting. The examiner traverses because the cited prior art discloses or suggests encrypted policy enforcement without exposing the secret. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 6-9, 11-14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandwine et al. (US 11,275,850 B1) in view of Aissi et al. (US 2014/0052999 A1), and further in view of Ignatenko et al. (US 2015/0222605 A1) . With respect to claim 1, Brandwine discloses: a computer-implemented method comprising: defining by a data owner, an access policy for a set of resources on a cloud computing system (i.e., client or object owner accessing object storage of a public cloud environment and defining security rules for access in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 4-29), wherein the access policy includes rules to allow access to the set of resources (i.e., security rules to determine whether access it to be denied or granted to an object requested in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 15-27) and the cloud computing system is managed by a cloud provider (i.e., object storage service of a provider network or public cloud environment for storing client data objects in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 5-45) receiving, by the cloud computing system, a request to access a first resource of the set of resources on the cloud computing system (i.e., requesting to access an object supported by an access control list in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 21-29 and col. 3 lines 40-45); and processing, based on the comparing, the request the access to first resource (i.e., granting or denying access based on security rules including access control lists and metadata attributes of requested object in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 21-45) Brandwine discloses object owner specifies a plurality of security rules to apply and enforce for allowing access to a data object (col. 16 lines 28-65). Brandwine do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Aissi, in order to enable searching of encrypted data without requiring the server to decrypt the data nor sharing the encryption key with the third party server (¶0030), discloses: wherein the attribute metadata includes a set of access attributes for each resource of the set of resources (i.e., transformed searchable fields are hashed such that the untrusted storage can still search and access the content without seeing the actual searchable field data of each data record in Aissi, ¶0026-0027) the attribute metadata and the access policy are encrypted by an encryption engine (i.e., the data is encrypted on the encrypting computing device, the encrypted data records and searchable field indices corresponding to the data record; the encrypted data is stored and the server cannot decrypt the data in Aissi, ¶0030) controlled by the data owner (i.e., the user controls the encryption and can send the encrypted data without sharing the encryption key with third parties in Aissi, ¶0030) wherein the request includes a set of credentials (i.e., sensitive data records can be searched and accessed by providing a hash of name identifier thereby suggesting a credential in Aissi, ¶0178); comparing, by the activation function, the set of credentials to the set of access attributes without decrypting the attribute metadata and the access policy (i.e., highly sensitive data retrieved by an HMAC identifier of the user and user identifying SSN; the server is able to determine access to the sensitive data record without the server needing to decrypt the file in Aissi, ¶0030, ¶0056). Based on Brandwine in view of Aissi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Aissi to improve upon those of Brandwine in order to enable searching of encrypted data without requiring the server to decrypt the data nor sharing the encryption key with the third party server. Brandwine discloses object owner specifies a plurality of security rules to apply and enforce for allowing access to a data object (col. 16 lines 28-65). Brandwine and Aissi do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Ignatenko, in order to reducing computational burden on cryptographic units while keeping data and the access policy secure (¶0025), discloses: creating, based on the access policy, an activation function (i.e., a policy transforming cryptographic unit for transforming the policy to obtain encrypted policy, the attribute based encrypted ciphertext includes a cryptographic representation of the policy in Ignatenko, ¶0079-0080) and attribute metadata in the cloud computing system (i.e., requester must have the appropriate attributes to match the attributes in the policy to access the encrypted content in Ignatenko, ¶0026-0027), and the encryption engine is located on the cloud computing system (i.e., provides semi-trusted proxy in the cloud receives encrypted message/policy components and transforms them into ABE ciphertext without receiving plaintext secrets in Ignatenko, ¶0061-¶0063, ¶0068, ¶0075, ¶0078, ¶0080) the activation function is stored with the set of resources on the cloud computing system (i.e., the ciphertext comprises the cryptographic representation of the policy as well as the encrypted message together in Ignatenko, ¶0080, ¶0085), and the activation function determines access to the set of resources based on the encrypted access policy (i.e., access to the message requires a particular combination of attributes in an associated key in Ignatenko, ¶0082). Based on Brandwine in view of Aissi, and further in view of Ignatenko, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ignatenko to improve upon those of Brandwine in order to reducing computational burden on cryptographic units while keeping data and the access policy secure. With respect to claim 2, Brandwine discloses: the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the set of credentials matches the set of access attributes; and wherein processing includes allowing access to the resource in response to the determining the credentials matches the access attributes. (i.e., security rules and access can be based on identifying the owner's name and whether it matches it for access in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 36-45). With respect to claim 3, Brandwine discloses: the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the set of credentials does not match the set of access attributes; and wherein the processing includes denying access to the resource in response to the determining the credentials do not match the access attributes (i.e., access control lists can be used to match whether users requesting access match the identities in the access control lists in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 40-45). With respect to claim 6, Brandwine discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the resource includes accessing data stored as an object based storage (i.e., objects can be used to store data in containers that have been created by the client in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 4-19). With respect to claim 7, Brandwine discloses: the method of claim 6, wherein the object based storage includes at least a bucket level with one or more buckets (i.e., containers or buckets can group objects in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 12-19), and an object level with one or more object in each bucket (i.e., objects may be grouped within containers or buckets in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 12-19), and the attribute metadata can include a least one attribute for each bucket and at least one attribute for each object (i.e., security rules may be applied to both containers and objects based on object metadata or a containers' category designation in Brandwine, col. 6 lines 10-22). With respect to claim 8, Brandwine discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the attribute metadata is selected from a group consisting of, an account type, an account role, a time, request location, and a type of requested resource (i.e., security rules can be based on creation/modification times and other suitable metadata tags in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 36-40). With respect to claim 9, Brandwine discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the attribute metadata include an account type, an account role (i.e., identifying the owner suggests indicating an account type and/or role between at least owner and non-owner in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 36-40), a time (i.e., creation or modification times in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 36-40), a request location (i.e., a geographical location associated with previous attacks can be a basis for security rules in Brandwine, col. 7 lines 1-5), and a type or requested resource (i.e., objects name and/or tags that can be assigned to the object in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 36-40). With respect to claim 11, Brandwine discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein each resource of the set of resources has a unique activation function (i.e., a security rule at the time of creation and storage of each object, the security rules are used to trigger security enforcement actions in Brandwine, col. 7 lines 12-20 and lines 33-51). With respect to claim 12, the limitation(s) of claim 12 are similar to those of claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 1. Brandwine further discloses object owner specifies a plurality of security rules to apply and enforce for allowing access to a data object (col. 16 lines 28-65). Brandwine do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Aissi, in order to enable searching of encrypted data without requiring the server to decrypt the data nor sharing the encryption key with the third party server (¶0030), discloses: compare, by the activation function, the set of credentials to the set of access attributes; and (i.e., credentials/search parameters are converted into searchable index values and matched in the encrypted database without additional authentication or an ACS request in Aissi, ¶0031, ¶0083-¶0086, ¶0104-¶0108) process, based on the comparing, the request the access the first resource. (i.e., the cloud matches transformed searchable field index values to encrypted records while the sensitive data and keys remain undisclosed in Aissi, ¶0026, ¶0028-¶0030, ¶0056, ¶0083-¶0086). Based on Brandwine in view of Aissi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Aissi to improve upon those of Brandwine in order to enable searching of encrypted data without requiring the server to decrypt the data nor sharing the encryption key with the third party server. With respect to claim 13, the limitation(s) of claim 13 are similar to those of claim(s) 2. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 2. With respect to claim 14, the limitation(s) of claim 14 are similar to those of claim(s) 3. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 3. With respect to claim 17, the limitation(s) of claim 17 are similar to those of claim(s) 1 and 12. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 1 and 12. With respect to claim 18, the limitation(s) of claim 18 are similar to those of claim(s) 2. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 2. With respect to claim 19, the limitation(s) of claim 19 are similar to those of claim(s) 3. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 3 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandwine et al. (US 11,275,850 B1) in view of Aissi et al. (US 2014/0052999 A1) and Ignatenko et al. (US 2015/0222605 A1), and further in view of Ranade et al. (US 2012/0089781 A1) . With respect to claim 10, Brandwine discloses: the method of claim 1 wherein the attribute metadata (i.e., objects can have attributes or metadata that can be queried and enforced with a security action in Brandwine, col. 6 lines 23- 53), and at a column level (i.e., the attributes or metadata of object includes a column such as age, or indication of encryption in Brandwine, col. 6 lines 23- 53). Brandwine discloses granting or denying access based on security rules including access control lists and metadata attributes of requested object (col. 3 lines 21-45). Brandwine, Aissi, and Ignatenko do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Ranade, in order to improve the speed and file version consistency of cloud storage (¶0004), discloses: includes attributes at a table level (i.e., metadata for data is organized into cloud tables, each cloud table corresponds to a hierarchical level of the metadata in Ranade, ¶0076). Based on Brandwine in view of Aissi and Ignatenko, and further in view of Ranade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ranade to improve upon those of Brandwine in order to improve the speed and file version consistency of cloud storage . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandwine et al. (US 11,275,850 B1) in view of Aissi et al. (US 2014/0052999 A1) and Ignatenko et al. (US 2015/0222605 A1), and further in view of Nyamwange (US 2023/0171083 A1) . With respect to claim 15, Brandwine discloses encryption action based on security rules corresponding to metadata, encryption of data using a key from an object owner (fig. 3, col. 10 lines 34-40). Brandwine, Aissi, and Ignatenko do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Nyamwange, in order to reduce costs and provide in real time security measures for accessing encrypted enterprise data (¶0001), discloses: the system of claim 12, wherein the creating the attribute metadata includes receiving from the access policy from an access control system, and the comparing is completed without sending the request to the access control system (i.e., receiving private keys corresponding to the enterprise data, and allowing accessed based on being provided the corresponding private key to the encrypted data without sending the request to the logic engine that generated the keys in Nyamwange, ¶0019). Based on Brandwine in view of Aissi and Ignatenko, and further in view of Nyamwange, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Nyamwange to improve upon those of Brandwine in order to reduce costs and provide in real time security measures for accessing encrypted enterprise data . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandwine et al. (US 11,275,850 B1) in view of Aissi et al. (US 2014/0052999 A1) and Ignatenko et al. (US 2015/0222605 A1), and further in view of Kopylovitz et al. (US 2013/0332700 A1) . With respect to claim 16, Brandwine discloses: the system of claim 12, and the resource includes accessing data stored as an object based storage (i.e., objects can be used to store data within containers that have been created by the client in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 4-19). Brandwine discloses security enforcement including encryption can occur based on the metadata attributes of an object (col. 12 lines 5-18). Brandwine, Aissi, and Ignatenko do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Kopylovitz, in order to improve security of replicating data in a multi-cloud system (¶0003-0005), discloses: wherein attribute based encryption is used to encrypt the attribute metadata (i.e., data is assigned metadata and then the metadata can be encrypted using private keys in Kopylovitz, ¶0019). Based on Brandwine in view of Aissi and Ignatenko, and further in view of Kopylovitz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Kopylovitz to improve upon those of Brandwine in order to improve security of replicating data in a multi-cloud system . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 20 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandwine et al. (US 11,275,850 B1) in view of Aissi et al. (US 2014/0052999 A1) and Ignatenko et al. (US 2015/0222605 A1), and further in view of Nyamwange (US 2023/0171083 A1) and Ranade et al. (US 2012/0089781 A1) . With respect to claim 20, Brandwine discloses encryption action based on security rules corresponding to metadata, encryption of data using a key from an object owner (fig. 3, col. 10 lines 34-40). Brandwine, Aissi, and Ignatenko do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Nyamwange, in order to reduce costs and provide in real time security measures for accessing encrypted enterprise data (¶0001), discloses: the computer program product of claim 17, wherein the first resource has a first set of access attributes (i.e., a corresponding private key with a distinct private key used to encrypt each piece and/or component of enterprise data in Nyamwange, ¶0019), and the set of credentials are checked by a first activation function (i.e., data access engine checks the private keys of the first piece enterprise data to the associated request in Nyamwange, ¶0019), the second resource has a second set of attributes (i.e., a corresponding private key with a distinct private key used to encrypt each piece and/or component of enterprise data in Nyamwange, ¶0019), and the set of credentials are checked by a second activation function (i.e., data access engine checks the private keys of each piece of enterprise data to the associated request, each piece of enterprise data having its own private key in Nyamwange, ¶0019). Based on Brandwine in view of Aissi and Ignatenko, and further in view of Nyamwange, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Nyamwange to improve upon those of Brandwine in order to reduce costs and provide in real time security measures for accessing encrypted enterprise data. Brandwine discloses granting or denying access based on security rules including access control lists and metadata attributes of requested object (col. 3 lines 21-45). Brandwine, Aissi, Ignatenko, and Nyamwange do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Ranade, in order to improve the speed and file version consistency of cloud storage (¶0004), discloses: the request to access the first resource include a second request to access a second resource of the set of resources (i.e., retrieving more than one file based on requested data in Ranade, ¶0065). Based on Brandwine in view of Aissi, Ignatenko, and Nyamwange, and further in view of Ranade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ranade to improve upon those of Brandwine in order to improve the speed and file version consistency of cloud storage . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandwine et al. (US 11,275,850 B1) in view of Aissi et al. (US 2014/0052999 A1) and Ignatenko et al. (US 2015/0222605 A1), and further in view of Summers et al. (US 10,594,730 B1) . With respect to claim 21, Brandwine discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein: the access policy includes rules to access the set of resources for a bucket level and an object level (i.e., security rules may be applied to both containers and objects based on object metadata or a containers' category designation in Brandwine, col. 6 lines 10-22; the activation function comprises a first activation function for the bucket level (i.e., grantor of access for any combination of security rules including access based on the objects creation/modification times, owner identity, and tags for the object; additionally, access control lists may be used to check credentials and identities to determine access in Brandwine, col. 3 lines 36-45) Brandwine discloses granting or denying access based on security rules indicating metadata attributes of requested object (col. 3 lines 21-45). Brandwine, Aissi, and Ignatenko do(es) not explicitly disclose comparison of two or more activation functions and policies at both the container and object level. Summers, in order to improve the flexibility of rules and policies of corresponding to an object such as in the instance of migration to a cloud storage environment (col. 1 lines 17-22), discloses: a second activation function for the object level (i.e., policies at both the bucket level and the object level in Summers, col. 11 lines 33-41); and the comparing includes the comparing by the first activation function and the second activation function. (i.e., policies regarding requestors having appropriate access for designated operations are enforced at multiple levels with different policies at both the bucket level and the data object level to be applied to the requested object in Summers, col. 11 lines 20-41). Based on Brandwine in view of Aissi and Ignatenko, and further in view of Summers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Summers to improve upon those of Brandwine in order to improve the flexibility of rules and policies of corresponding to an object such as in the instance of migration to a cloud storage environment. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERMAN L LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern). 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, Joon Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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. Sherman Lin 5/30/2026 /S. L./Examiner, Art Unit 2447 /JOON H HWANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2447 Application/Control Number: 17/457,281 Page 2 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 17/457,281 Page 3 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 17/457,281 Page 4 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 17/457,281 Page 5 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 17/457,281 Page 6 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 17/457,281 Page 7 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 17/457,281 Page 8 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 17/457,281 Page 9 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 17/457,281 Page 10 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 17/457,281 Page 12 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 17/457,281 Page 13 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 17/457,281 Page 14 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 17/457,281 Page 15 Art Unit: 2447
Prosecution Insights