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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/24//2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Claim 49 is objected as it recites “receive, from a third device, a request for accessing the data, wherein the request comprises an access token generated by the second device in response to determining that the third device has authority to access the attributes of the data”. It is not clear how second device determines that the third device has authorization to access the attribute data, moreover it also not clear where from the third device gets the access token. It is recommended Applicant clarifies these issues of lack of information.
Claim 49 is further objected as it recites “based on the access token, determine that the third device has the authority for accessing the data; based on determining the third device has authority for accessing the data, transmit the data to the third device to enable the third device to verify the integrity of the data by comparing a hash value of the transmitted data with the original hash value”. It is not clear where from the third device receives the original hash.
Claim 49 is further objected as it recites “transmit the data to the third device to enable the third device to verify the integrity of the data by comparing a hash value of the transmitted data with the original hash value”. It is not clear where from the third device receives the original hash”. Recitation of the word “enable” makes this limitation optional (hence Examiner does not have to map it) as the system may not execute it. The Applicant is required to write it a positive manner.
Claim 57 is further objected as it recites “based on determining the third device has the authority for accessing the attributes of the data”. It is not clear how second device determines that the third device has authorization to access the attribute data.
Claim 57 is further objected as it recites “to enable the third device to access the data from the storage location at the first device and verify the integrity of the data by comparing a hash value of the data received from the first device with the original hash value”. It is not clear from the claim recitation where from the third device receives the original hash”. Additionally, recitation of the word “enable” makes this limitation optional (hence Examiner does not have to map it) as the system may not execute it. The Applicant is required to write it in a positive manner.
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 49-50, 53-54 & 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 49 recites the limitations “cause the first device at least to: generate at least one indication associated with comprising attributes of data while generating the data. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 49 recites the limitations “receive, from a third device, a request for accessing the data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 49 recites the limitations “to verify the integrity of the data by comparing a hash value of the transmitted data with the original hash value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 50-51, 53-54 & 56 are also rejected under 35 USC 112 (b) as they are dependent on claim 49 and as they do not cure the deficiencies of the claim 49.
Claims 57-61 & 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 57 recites the limitations “Claim 49 recites the limitations “cause the first device at least to: generate at least one indication associated with comprising attributes of data while generating the data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitations “generate an access token for accessing the data at the first device;” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitations “to enable the third device to access the data from the storage location at the first device” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 58-61 & 63 are also rejected under 35 USC 112 (b) as they are dependent on claim 57 and as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 57.
Claims 64-65 & 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 64 recites the limitation “transmit a first request to a second device for accessing attributes of data generated by a first device while generating the data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 64 recites the limitation “an original hash value of the data and a storage location of the data at the first device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 64 recites the limitation “generate a second request for accessing the data at least based on the attributes of the data; transmit, to the first device, the second request for accessing the data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 64 recites the limitation “generate a second request for accessing the data at least based on the attributes of the data; transmit, to the first device, the second request for accessing the data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 64 recites the limitation “receive the data from the first device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant has further amended independent claims 49 & 57& 64 and argued in Remarks dated 6/24/2026 that Feng, Kshirsagar, Giura, Senarath and Caldera alone or in combination do not disclose all the limitations of claim 57. Examiner has reviewed both the amendments and the arguments and found the arguments persuasive. Rejections 35 USC 103 issued for claims 57-61 & 63, in the previous office action have been withdrawn. The Applicant in the said remarks stated that similar arguments also apply for claims 49 & 64. Examiner also found this statement persuasive. Hence, rejections 35 USC 103 for claims 49-50, 53-54 & 56 and 64-65 & 67 issued in the previous office action have also been withdrawn. However, Amendment has also created several issues which are illustrated above and need to be addressed by the Applicant before Examiner can take any decision about allowance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 49 will be placed in allowable condition if the Applicant rewrite the claim in a manner that overcome the claim objections as well as 112b rejections issued above in this instant office action without broadening the scope of the claim and without creating any new issues.
Claim 57 will be placed in allowable condition if the Applicant rewrite the claim in a manner that overcome the claim objections as well as 112b rejections issued above in this instant office action without broadening the scope of the claim and without creating any new issues.
Claim 64 will be placed in allowable condition if the Applicant rewrite the claim in a manner that overcome the claim objections as well as 112b rejections issued above in this instant office action without broadening the scope of the claim and without creating any new issues.
Claims 50, 53-54 & claims 56, 58-61 & 63 and claims 65-67 will also be placed in allowable condition for their dependencies on claims 49, 57 & 64 respectively, if above mentioned issues for claims 49, 57 & 64 are resolved satisfactorily.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be provided once the Applicant respond officially to this instant office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHER A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am-500pm.
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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-3867. 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.
/SHER A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights