Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 11/7/2025. Claims 1, 11, 14, 22, 24 and 31 were amended. Claims 1-31 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/7/2025, to claims 1 and 22 correcting the claim to recite “sub-vault access exigent circumstance” are sufficient to overcome the rejection to the aforementioned claim. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-23 and 25-31 under 112, second paragraph, as filed in (9) of the Non-Final Office action filed 5/7/2025, is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/7/2025, to claim 31 correcting the claim to recite “sub-vault access exigent circumstance” are sufficient to overcome the rejection to the aforementioned claim. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 31 under 112, second paragraph, as filed in (14) of the Non-Final Office action filed 5/7/2025, is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the claims under Davidovics, Walker and Kamber have been considered, and are found unpersuasive.
Applicant argues on page(s) 9-14 of the Remarks, filed 11/7/2025, the cited prior art fail to teach or suggest the claimed invention because “the mere fact that each reference mentions the security of information is insufficient to combine these diverse disclosures in the manner hypothesized in the outstanding rejection” and “even if one would seek to combine these documents in the manner hypothesized, one would not arrive at the claimed invention”. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited references, when considered as a whole, provide a clear rationale to combine without reliance on improper hindsight. Davidovics further teaches controlled access mechanisms that may be granted for a specific but limited time period, including limiting the availability of keys for only a defined duration, even mentioning the context of medical data in one example (Davidovics; [0096]-[0099]: The patient can grant access and/or update to his medical data through the following settings, and subject to the following limitations set by the patient). Walker teaches an electronic vault for storing electronic data with compartmentalization/segmentation of contents and delegated or partial access to third parties with identity confirmation/validation (Walker; Col. 3, Lines 43-45: An EV system may also allow the customer to designate third party delegates to access all or a portion of the contents with the ESDB on the customer's behalf). Kamber provides the exigent/emergency access context and associated notification/contact concepts (Kamber; [0023]: During an emergency situation, a first responder may scan the NFC tag to send a text message from his or her cellular telephone to a predetermined emergency contact to notify the emergency contact that the individual is undergoing emergency medical treatment). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify the limited authorized mechanisms of Davidovics with the secure electronic storage and delegated access system of Walker, and further incorporate emergency/exigent circumstance access/notifications concepts of Kamber in order to achieve secure yet usable temporary access to stored information when a user is unavailable. Additionally, Applicant appears to be reading limitations into the claims that are not currently present, such as “securing that information in a way that there is no loss of security when the user later becomes available” as well as “in an exigent circumstance, there is no need to controlled access for a limited period of time if the data in question is available via a QR code”. Davidovics teaches the first with time-based or proximity-based limited access. Kamber simply teaches that one example of an exigent circumstance includes one where the user is unavailable (in Kamber’s case, incapacitated or unconscious).
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
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 11-14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “sub-vault access circumstances”, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 11, inheriting the same deficiencies and are likewise similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “sub-vault access circumstances of step (f)”, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites “sub-vault exigent circumstance”, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-15, 17-18, 20, 22, 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidovics (US 2021/0104304 A1), in view of Walker (US 10530580 B1), further in view of Kamber (US 20200357497 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Davidovics teaches the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A method for providing limited, controlled access to digital information of a user during exigent circumstances: (Davidovics; Abstract: The patient (or patient's appointed agent) controls access to the PHR and authorizes by electronic communications with the PHV server to allow doctors to have access to the centrally maintained and structured medical data in the PHV. The access can be limited in duration)
f) receiving, by the processor, notification that a sub-vault access exigent circumstance has occurred; and (Davidovics; Para. [0178]: It may send and display on the patient's mobile device the information about or listing of all HCPs that are currently authorized by the patient to access his or her PHR (i.e. receiving, by the processor, notification that a sub-vault access exigent circumstance has occurred))
(i) verifying the identity of a sub-vault access contact and (Davidovics; Para. [0051]: patient's or doctor's fingerprint or direct authorization while at the PHC facility (i.e. verifying the identity of a sub-vault access contact))
(ii) allowing access for a limited period of time. (Davidovics; Para. [0002]: grant doctors, hospitals, pharmacies and other medical and health care service providers quick and efficient “on purpose” or “on demand” limited and temporary access to the patients' medical records when needed (i.e. allowing access for a limited period of time))
Davidovics does not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
a) creating, by a processor, a digital vault of a user;
b) storing, by the processor, encrypted digital information of the user in one or more predetermined destination locations within the digital vault;
c)permitting, by the processor, the user to allocate encrypted digital information in the digital vault into one or more digital sub-vaults;
d) permitting, by the processor, the user to allocate one or more sub-vault access contacts with controlled access to one or more sub-vaults;
e) permitting, by the processor, the user to allocate digital sub-vault access to the one or more allocated sub-vault access contacts of step (c) based on the occurrence of one or more vault access circumstances, wherein the one or more vault access circumstances comprise at least one exigent circumstance where the user's ability to access the information is compromised,
g) providing, by the processor, the sub-vault access contact(s), with controlled access to a sub-vault upon the occurrence of the sub-vault access exigent circumstance of step (f), said controlled access includes
However, in the same field of endeavor, Walker discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
a) creating, by a processor, a digital vault of a user; (Walker; Col. 21, Lines 41-44: one or more electronic safe deposit boxes (ESDBs) (i.e. a digital vault of a user) storing electronic files on a customer by customer basis (i.e. one or more predetermined destination locations), all documents that are uploaded and stored are encrypted (i.e. storing, by the processor, encrypted digital information of the user))
b) storing, by the processor, encrypted digital information of the user in one or more predetermined destination locations within the digital vault; (Walker; Col. 21, Lines 41-44: one or more electronic safe deposit boxes (ESDBs) (i.e. a digital vault of a user) storing electronic files on a customer by customer basis (i.e. one or more predetermined destination locations), all documents that are uploaded and stored are encrypted (i.e. storing, by the processor, encrypted digital information of the user))
c)permitting, by the processor, the user to allocate encrypted digital information in the digital vault into one or more digital sub-vaults; (Walker; Abstract; Col. 2, Lines 51-55: at least one electronic safe deposit box, and subdivisions thereof, for storing electronic data corresponding to a specific customer (i.e. allocate encrypted digital information in the digital vault into one or more digital sub-vaults))
d) permitting, by the processor, the user to allocate one or more sub-vault access contacts with controlled access to one or more sub-vaults; (Walker; Abstract; Col. 8, Line 65 – Col. 9, Line 4: Clicking on another user's profile will allow the user to see documents, tasks and events that user has permission to access (i.e. allocate one or more sub-vault access contacts with controlled access to one or more sub-vaults))
e) permitting, by the processor, the user to allocate digital sub-vault access to the one or more allocated sub-vault access contacts of step (c) based on the occurrence of one or more vault access circumstances, (Walker; Abstract; Col. 8, Line 65 – Col. 9, Line 4: Clicking on another user's profile will allow the user to see documents, tasks and events that user has permission to access (i.e. allocate digital sub-vault access to the one or more allocated sub-vault access contacts of step (c) based on the occurrence of one or more vault access circumstances))
g) providing, by the processor, the sub-vault access contact(s), with controlled access to a sub-vault upon the occurrence of the sub-vault access exigent circumstance of step (f), said controlled access includes (Walker; Abstract; Col. 8, Line 65 – Col. 9, Line 4; Col. 15, Lines 53-61: Configuring sharing options with family, friends, coworkers, etc (i.e. providing, by the processor, the sub-vault access contact(s), with controlled access to a sub-vault upon the occurrence of the sub-vault access exigent circumstances of step (f)))
Walker is combinable with Davidovics because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure storage and access to information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Davidovics to incorporate the storage of encrypted information and delegating access to specific information as in Walker in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which particular information may have managed secure access procedures.
Davidovics and Walker do not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
wherein the one or more vault access circumstances comprise at least one exigent circumstance where the user's ability to access the information is compromised, However, in the same field of endeavor, Kamber discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
wherein the one or more vault access circumstances comprise at least one exigent circumstance where the user's ability to access the information is compromised, (Kamber; Para(s). [0183]: an NFC tag that may be scanned to send a text message to an emergency contact to indicate that the passport holder is incapacitated or undergoing emergency medical treatment. In one embodiment, the medical information passport desirably includes a QR code that may be scanned to obtain emergency medical information for an individual (i.e. exigent circumstance where the user's ability to access the information is compromised))
Kamber is combinable with Davidovics and Walker because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure storage and access to information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Davidovics and Walker to incorporate the access to medical emergency information upon incapacitation as in Kamber in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which personal or sensitive information may be accessed in an exigent circumstance.
Regarding claim 2, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The method according to Claim 1, wherein step (b) comprises uploading, by the processor, of one or more digital files to one or more predetermined destination locations. (Walker; Col. 21, Lines 41-44: one or more electronic safe deposit boxes (ESDBs) storing electronic files on a customer by customer basis, all documents that are uploaded and stored are encrypted (i.e. uploading, by the processor, of one or more digital files to one or more predetermined destination locations))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 2.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The method according to Claim 2, wherein step (b) further comprises encrypting, by the processor, each of the one or more digital files. (Walker; Col. 21, Lines 41-44: one or more electronic safe deposit boxes (ESDBs) storing electronic files on a customer by customer basis, all documents that are uploaded and stored are encrypted (i.e. encrypting, by the processor, each of the one or more digital files))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein step (c) further comprises permitting, by the processor, the user to allocate encrypted digital information as information for public availability and/or dissemination, which information for public availability and/or dissemination is allocated to the occurrence of one or more vault access circumstances. (Davidovics; Para. [0170]: the PHV can store and maintain not only the patient's medical records for use by treating providers, but also a de-privatized/de-personalized version of the medical data that can be shared with researchers and other public sources (i.e. permitting, by the processor, the user to allocate encrypted digital information as information for public availability and/or dissemination, which information for public availability and/or dissemination is allocated to the occurrence of one or more vault access circumstances))
Regarding claim 8, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein step (c) further comprises permitting, by the processor, the user to allocate encrypted digital information as information for public availability and/or dissemination into one or more public information sub-vaults, which public information sub-vaults are allocated to the occurrence of one or more vault access circumstance. (Davidovics; Para. [0170]: the PHV can store and maintain not only the patient's medical records for use by treating providers, but also a de-privatized/de-personalized version of the medical data that can be shared with researchers and other public sources (i.e. permitting, by the processor, the user to allocate encrypted digital information as information for public availability and/or dissemination into one or more public information sub-vaults, which public information sub-vaults are allocated to the occurrence of one or more vault access circumstance))
Regarding claim 9, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 8.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 8, wherein at least a portion of the information allocated to the public information sub-vaults created in step (d) comprises exigent information of the user. (Davidovics; Para. [0170]: the PHV can store and maintain not only the patient's medical records for use by treating providers, but also a de-privatized/de-personalized version of the medical data (i.e. exigent information of the user) that can be shared with researchers and other public sources)
Regarding claim 10, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein step (d) further comprises; permitting, by the processor, the user in setting an amount of time for access to the sub-vault. (Davidovics; Para. [0086]: allows the access to be time-limited or the authorization to be directed to the specific HCP (i.e. permitting, by the processor, the user in setting an amount of time for access to the sub-vault))
Regarding claim 11, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein step (d) further comprises: informing, by the processor, the one or more sub-vault access contacts of (i) their status as sub-vault access contacts and (ii) the sub-vault access circumstances for which the contact has access. (Davidovics; Para. [0177]: Once the patient receives and enters this code, the doctor may receive a new message, indicating that the 2-way access was enabled (i.e. informing, by the processor, the one or more sub-vault access contacts of (i) their status as sub-vault access contacts and (ii) their sub-vault access circumstances))
Regarding claim 12, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 11.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 11 wherein step (d) further comprises requesting, by the processor, confirmation of acceptance by the vault access contacts of their status. (Davidovics; Para. [0177]: the server will provide a message or screen indicating that the patient's code was verified by the server, and that doctor should give the digital token or code provided by the server to the patient (i.e. requesting, by the processor, confirmation of acceptance by the vault access contacts of their status))
Regarding claim 13, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 12.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 13 as follows:
The method according to Claim 12, step (d) further comprises: notifying, by the processor, the user as to whether each contact has accepted their role as sub-vault access contact. (Davidovics; Para. [0178]: It may send and display on the patient's mobile device the information about or listing of all HCPs that are currently authorized by the patient to access his or her PHR (i.e. notifying, by the processor, the user as to whether each contact has accepted their role as sub-vault access contact))
Regarding claim 14, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 13.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1 where sub-vault access circumstances of step (f) comprise a triggering event or a predetermined time. (Walker; Abstract; Col. 8, Line 65 – Col. 9, Line 4: Clicking on another user's profile will allow the user to see documents, tasks and events that user has permission to access (i.e. a triggering event))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 15 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein step (f) comprises receiving, by the processor, notification from a third party present with the user. (Davidovics; Paras. [0005] & [0178]: It may send and display on the patient's mobile device the information about or listing of all HCPs, including patient advocates, that are currently authorized by the patient to access his or her PHR (i.e. receiving, by the processor, notification from a third party present with the user)) (Additionally, para. [0048] Discusses proximity to the patient as a factor in gaining access)
Regarding claim 17, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 15.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 17 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 15 wherein step (f) comprises receiving, by the processor, notification from at least one contactless communication device on a card of the user. (Davidovics; Paras. [0005] & [0178]: It may send and display on the patient's mobile device (i.e. receiving, by the processor, notification from at least one contactless communication device on a card of the user) the information about or listing of all HCPs, including patient advocates, that are currently authorized by the patient to access his or her PHR)
Regarding claim 18, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 17.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 17 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 17, wherein the contactless communication device is a QR code, a Bluetooth device or an NFC device. (Davidovics; Paras. [0005] & [0178]: It may send and display on the patient's mobile device (i.e. the contactless communication device is a QR code, a Bluetooth device or an NFC device) the information about or listing of all HCPs, including patient advocates, that are currently authorized by the patient to access his or her PHR)
Regarding claim 20, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 7.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 7, wherein step (f) further comprises release, by the processor, of at least a portion of the information for public availability and/or dissemination. (Davidovics; Para. [0170]: the PHV can store and maintain not only the patient's medical records for use by treating providers, but also a de-privatized/de-personalized version of the medical data that can be shared with researchers and other public sources (i.e. release, by the processor, of at least a portion of the information for public availability and/or dissemination))
Regarding claim 22, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 22 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein step (f) further comprises receiving, by the processor, notification from the user of the sub-vault access exigent circumstance . (Walker; Abstract; Col. 8, Line 65 – Col. 9, Line 4: Clicking on another user's profile will allow the user to see documents, tasks and events that user has permission to access (i.e. notification from the user of the sub-vault access exigent circumstance))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 24, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
The method according to Claim 1, step (g) further comprises (ii) alerting, by the processor, the one or more sub-vault contacts allocated to the sub-vault exigent circumstance. (Davidovics; Para. [0177]: the server will provide a message or screen indicating that the patient's code was verified by the server, and that doctor should give the digital token or code provided by the server to the patient (i.e. alerting, by the processor, the one or more sub-vault contacts allocated to the sub-vault exigent circumstance))
Regarding claim 25, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 25 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein verification of step (g) comprises biometric authorization of a sub-vault access contact. (Davidovics; Para. [0051]: patient's or doctor's fingerprint or direct authorization while at the PHC facility (i.e. biometric authorization of a sub-vault access contact))
Regarding claim 26, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 26 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein verification of step (g) comprises facial identification authorization of a sub-vault access contact. (Davidovics; Para. [0056]: authenticating digital fingerprint (or other personal identification methods, like facial recognition, retina scan, etc.) (i.e. facial identification authorization of a sub-vault access contact))
Regarding claim 27, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 27 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein verification of step (g) comprises multi-factor authorization of a sub-vault access contact. (Davidovics; Paras. [0048]-[0052]: multiple modes of authentication (i.e. multi-factor authorization of a sub-vault access contact))
Regarding claim 28, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1 wherein each sub-vault has at least two sub- vault access contacts and authentication of step (g) requires, by the processor, authorization of at least two sub-vault contacts. (Davidovics; Para. [0023]: the access to patient's copy of his PHR data is owned by the patient and the access can be given by the patient to multiple HCPs (i.e. each sub-vault has at least two sub- vault access contacts and authentication of step (f) requires, by the processor, authorization of at least two sub-vault contacts))
Regarding claim 29, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 29 as follows:
The method according to Claim 1, step (g) comprises: providing, by the processor, access to information in the sub-vault in a format suitable for a mobile electronic device. (Davidovics; Para. [0019]: a Web-based application on a mobile device, such as for example a smartphone or tablet, or real-time access via Internet browser the database with PHR (i.e. providing, by the processor, access to information in the sub-vault in a format suitable for a mobile electronic device))
Regarding claim 30, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 30 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1, step (g) further comprising: permitting, by the processor, the downloading of digital information from the sub- vault. (Davidovics; Para. [0079]: the patient PHR data is stored and protected in the cloud-based PHV and can be downloaded from it to the patient's mobile or stationary device (i.e. permitting, by the processor, the downloading of digital information from the sub- vault))
Regarding claim 31, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 31 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1, step (g) further comprising: notifying, by the processor, of at least one vault administrator of the occurrence of the sub-vault access exigent circumstance, which vault administrator is capable of closing the vault. (Davidovics; Para. [0178]: It may send and display on the patient's mobile device the information about or listing of all HCPs that are currently authorized by the patient to access his or her PHR (i.e. notifying, by the processor, of at least one vault administrator of the occurrence of the sub-vault access exigent circumstance, which vault administrator is capable of closing the vault))
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidovics (US 2021/0104304 A1), in view of Walker (US 10530580 B1), further in view of Kamber (US 20200357497 A1), as applied to independent claim 1, further in view of Chung (US 2020/0372163 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 3.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber do not teach the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The method according to Claim 3, wherein encrypting the one or more digital files includes shredding, by the processor, of the files prior to storage. (Chung; Para. [0048]: Storing shredded pieces of files to multiple backend storages as encrypted data (i.e. encrypting the one or more digital files includes shredding, by the processor, of the files prior to storage))
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chung discloses the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The method according to Claim 3, wherein encrypting the one or more digital files includes shredding, by the processor, of the files prior to storage. (Chung; Para. [0048]: Storing shredded pieces of files to multiple backend storages as encrypted data (i.e. encrypting the one or more digital files includes shredding, by the processor, of the files prior to storage))
Chung is combinable with Davidovics, Walker and Kamber because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure storage and access to information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Davidovics, Walker and Kamber to incorporate shredding as part of the encrypted storage as in Chung in order to improve the security of the system by incorporating shredding as a method in the storage process.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidovics (US 2021/0104304 A1), in view of Walker (US 10530580 B1), further in view of Kamber (US 20200357497 A1), as applied to independent claim 1, further in view of Kukimiya (US 2022/0300658 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 2.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber do not teach the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The method according to Claim 2, wherein step (b) further comprises generating, by the processor, a file hash for each of the one or more digital files that is uploaded.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kukimiya discloses the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The method according to Claim 2, wherein step (b) further comprises generating, by the processor, a file hash for each of the one or more digital files that is uploaded. (Kukimiya; Para. [0004]: transmits to a blockchain network a transaction containing alteration-prevention data, which includes a hash value of video recording data, and stores, in a property or the name of a file, identification information to identify a transaction registered in the blockchain (i.e. generating, by the processor, a file hash for each of the one or more digital files that is uploaded))
Kukimiya is combinable with Davidovics, Walker and Kamber because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure storage and access to information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Davidovics, Walker and Kamber to incorporate file hashing as in Kukimiya in order to improve the security of the system by further securing information via a file hash.
Regarding claim 6, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 2.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber do not teach the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The method according to Claim 2, step (b) further comprises authenticating, by the processor, one or more digital files, wherein authenticating comprises (i) generating a file hash for the uploaded digital file, (ii) creating input data comprising the file hash, (iii) creating a blockchain transaction from the input data, and (iv) storing the transaction id for the blockchain transaction in a predetermined destination location.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kukimiya discloses the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The method according to Claim 2, step (b) further comprises authenticating, by the processor, one or more digital files, wherein authenticating comprises (i) generating a file hash for the uploaded digital file, (ii) creating input data comprising the file hash, (iii) creating a blockchain transaction from the input data, and (iv) storing the transaction id for the blockchain transaction in a predetermined destination location. (Kukimiya; Para. [0004]: transmits to a blockchain network a transaction containing alteration-prevention data, which includes a hash value of video recording data (i.e. generating a file hash for the uploaded digital file, creating input data comprising the file hash), and stores, in a property or the name of a file, identification information to identify a transaction registered in the blockchain (i.e. creating a blockchain transaction from the input data, storing the transaction id for the blockchain transaction in a predetermined destination location) and compares the hash value of the video recording data with the hash value contained in the alteration-prevention data (i.e. authenticating, by the processor, one or more digital files))
Kukimiya is combinable with Davidovics, Walker and Kamber because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure storage and access to information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Davidovics, Walker and Kamber to incorporate file hashing as in Kukimiya in order to improve the security of the system by further securing information via a file hash.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidovics (US 2021/0104304 A1), in view of Walker (US 10530580 B1), further in view of Kamber (US 20200357497 A1), as applied to independent claim 1, further in view of Le Saint (US 2019/0089531 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 15.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber do not teach the limitations of claim 16 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 15 wherein step (f) comprises receiving, by the processor, a phone call related to the triggering event, and forwarding, by the processor, the phone call to one or more of the sub-vault access contacts allocated to the triggering event.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Le Saint discloses the limitations of claim 16 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 15 wherein step (f) comprises receiving, by the processor, a phone call related to the triggering event, and forwarding, by the processor, the phone call to one or more of the sub-vault access contacts allocated to the triggering event. (Le Saint; Para. [0023]: Authorization response message requiring response pending more information, merchant must call the toll-free authorization phone number (i.e. receiving, by the processor, a phone call related to the triggering event, and forwarding, by the processor, the phone call to one or more of the sub-vault access contacts allocated to the triggering event))
Le Saint is combinable with Davidovics, Walker and Kamber because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure communication between parties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Davidovics, Walker and Kamber to incorporate phone calls as part of the authorization process as in Le Saint in order to expand the functionality of the system by additionally allowing access via a process involving a phone call.
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidovics (US 2021/0104304 A1), in view of Walker (US 10530580 B1), further in view of Kamber (US 20200357497 A1), as applied to independent claim 1, further in view of Karame (US 2022/0217002 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 15.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber do not teach the limitations of claim 19 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 15 wherein step (f) comprises receiving, by the processor, notification from at least one QR code on a mobile electronic device of the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Karame discloses the limitations of claim 19 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 15 wherein step (f) comprises receiving, by the processor, notification from at least one QR code on a mobile electronic device of the user. (Karame; Para. [0031]: a QR code or NFC, which is associated with a secure element in a data storage device (i.e. receiving, by the processor, notification from at least one QR code on a mobile electronic device of the user))
Karame is combinable with Davidovics, Walker and Kamber because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing access to secure information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Davidovics, Walker and Kamber to incorporate utilization of a QR for accessing a secure element as in Karame in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means for accessing secure information via a specific QR code.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidovics (US 2021/0104304 A1), in view of Walker (US 10530580 B1), further in view of Kamber (US 20200357497 A1), as applied to independent claim 1, further in view of Dowlatkhah (US 2018/0260247 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber do not teach the limitations of claim 21 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein step (f) further comprises receiving, by the processor, notification that the user is unable to communicate effectively with the third party present with the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dowlatkhah discloses the limitations of claim 21 as follows:
The method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein step (f) further comprises receiving, by the processor, notification that the user is unable to communicate effectively with the third party present with the user. (Dowlatkhah; Para. [0021]: the personalized biometrics hub may inform third parties of problems at the customer premises with one or more biometric devices, such as a power failure of a particular device, a general loss of power at the premises, a loss of connectivity via a primary mode of communication (i.e. receiving, by the processor, notification that the user is unable to communicate effectively with the third party present with the user))
Dowlatkhah is combinable with Davidovics, Walker and Kamber because all are from the same field of endeavor of sharing secure information between parties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Davidovics, Walker and Kamber to incorporate detection of a communication interference as in Dowlatkhah in order to improve the security of the system by performing separate access routines based on exigent circumstances.
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidovics (US 2021/0104304 A1), in view of Walker (US 10530580 B1), further in view of Kamber (US 20200357497 A1), as applied to independent claim 1, further in view of Haslam (US 2019/0354665 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Davidovics, Walker and Kamber teach the limitations of claim 1.
Davidovics, Walker and Kamber do not teach the limitations of claim 23 as follows:
The method according to Claim 1, where step (f) further comprises: receiving, by the processor, notification of a travel emergency relating to the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Haslam discloses the limitations of claim 23 as follows:
The method according to Claim 1, where step (f) further comprises: receiving, by the processor, notification of a travel emergency relating to the user. (Haslam; Para. [0091]: The notification of loss could generate a response to the mobile device of the traveler that provides instructions for reporting that the physical passport is missing (i.e. receiving, by the processor, notification of a travel emergency relating to the user))
Haslam is combinable with Davidovics, Walker and Kamber because all are from the same field of endeavor of maintaining information of a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Davidovics, Walker and Kamber to incorporate notifying the system in case of an emergency as in Haslam in order to improve the security of the system by performing separate access routines based on exigent circumstances.
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Kim (US 2021/0318814 A1) which teaches storage device which includes at least one non-volatile memory device, a memory controller encrypting data using key information, storing the encrypted data in the at least one non-volatile memory device.
Lakhani (US 2018/0332033 A1) which teaches a method for authorized access to restricted access locations. A first and/or second device includes a secure storage storing security credentials associated with a user for authorized access to restricted access locations. The second device is associated with a unique identifier.
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, claims 1-31 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2438