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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al (2020/0142549) in view of Subbanna (US 12015619), Cheng et al (8065712) and Haeger et al (2014/0122866).
For claim 1, Kaplan teaches cloud-native content management system (110 as shown in fig.1A and 2) for electronically storing digital content (par.38,lines 1-3), the content management system (110 as shown in fig.1A and 2) being electronically accessible via an Internet using a compute device (150 as shown in fig.1A and 2) (par.39, lines 1-6), the cloud-native content management system (110 as shown in fig.1A and 2) comprising: (a) a content file system (116 as shown in fig.1A and 2) for storing the digital content in a cloud storage device (par.43, lines 1-5 and par.53, lines 3-8); (b) content management business logic services (112 as shown in fig.1A and 2) for regulating an exchange of digital content between the content file system (116 as shown in fig.1A and 2) and the compute device (150 as shown in fig.1A and 2) (par.61, lines 1-5 and par.116, lines 1-6), the content management business logic services being implemented using a cloud computing services platform (par.34, lines 4-8); and (c) an authentication and authorization service (132 and 212 as shown in fig.2) in communication with the content management business logic services (112 as shown in fig.1A and 2), the authentication and authorization service being implement using a cloud computing services platform (par.128, lines 8-12 and par.129, lines 4-8), the authentication and authorization service applying a set of access rules for the direct transfer of digital content from the content file system (par 76, par.117, and par.119,lines 1-8, Kaplan teaches that authorization service 132 ensures that a user account attempting to access a namespace has appropriate rights to access the namespace. Authorization service 132 can receive a token from client application 152 that follows a request to access a namespace and can return the capabilities permitted to the user account and Content storage interface 206 can receive content requests (e.g., downloads, uploads, etc.) from client device 150, authenticate client device 150 via authentication service 212, communicate with authorization service 132); (d) wherein the authentication and authorization service (132 and 212 as shown in fig.2) implement access credentials based on the set of access rules that enable the compute device to directly communicate and exchange digital content with the content file system (par.117, lines 1-11 and par.119, lines 1-9).
Kaplan does not explicitly disclose a content file system for storing the digital content in a cloud storage device, authentication and authorization service applying a set of access rules for the direct transfer of digital content from the cloud storage device of the content file system, implements access credentials based on the set of access rules that enable the compute device to directly communicate and exchange digital content with the cloud storage device of the content file system while bypassing the content management business logic services, the access credentials being both temporary and content restrictive.
Haeger teaches, similar system, a content file system for storing the digital content in a cloud storage device (Haeger teaches that text files stored by cloud storage server as Haeger teaches in par.15 and 24), authentication and authorization service applying a set of access rules for the direct transfer of digital content from the cloud storage device of the content file system (Haeger teaches that Crypto proxy 104, as authentication and authorization service, can use this information to authenticate (via, e.g., authentication component 116) the user's identity (in order to retrieve the user's encryption key) and/or determine whether the user is authorized to upload the file to cloud storage server 108, which means that there is direct communications between Crypto proxy and cloud storage server of the content file as Haeger teaches in par.28 and 32). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify metadata database service of Kaplan to include direct transfer of digital content from the cloud storage device of the content file system as taught and suggested by Haeger in order to facilitate user access to cloud-stored data and to ensure that its users' data is kept completely private from the cloud storage service provider (and other third parties), since the cloud storage server provider cannot access the keys that the crypto proxy uses for encryption/decryption (Haeger, par.13).
Subbanna discloses the compute device to directly communicate and exchange digital content with the cloud storage device of the content file system (there is direct communication between computing device, element 102 as shown in fig.1, and the cloud storage device of the content file system, which is element 108 as shown in fig.1) while bypassing the content management business logic services (Subbanna teaches in col 28, lines 61-67, col 35, lines 15-col 36, line 16, selectively forwarding selected among actions bypass). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify metadata database service of Kaplan to include with the teaching of Subbanna in order to provide cloud based dynamic access policy based on contextualization (Subbanna, col 2, lines 11-20).
Kaplan and Subbanna does not disclose, however, Cheng teaches that implements access credentials based on the set of access rules (col.6, lines 38-60 and col.11, lines 24-45 Cheng teaches that access manager 110 acts as a qualification authority. After successful authentication, access manager 110 may respond to a credentialed or authorized client, through an access server 120, 121 with procedures for making a qualification determination) and the access credentials being both temporary and content restrictive (col.12, lines 50-60 and col.16, lines 12-18, Cheng teaches that of establishing temporary role is preferably configured such that indicated remediation resources may be accessed by the client. However, alternatively, the temporary role could be configured such that the client is not allowed any access to the network, in which case the process ends and the user is required to re-start the qualification determination process again in order to access the network). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify the teaching of Kaplan Subbanna with the teachings of Cheng to qualify a client machine to access a network (Cheng, Col. 1, lines 22-23).
For claim 2, Kaplan, Haeger , Subbanna and Cheng teaches the system of claim 1. Kaplan further teaches wherein the authentication and authorization service (Kaplan , 132 and 212 as shown in fig.2) restricts the direct exchange of digital content between the content file system and the compute device based on the set of access rules (Kaplan teaches par.76, lines 1-5 and par.121, lines 1-10).
For claim 3, Kaplan, Haeger , Subbanna and Cheng teaches the system of claim 1. Kaplan further teaches wherein the authentication and authorization service issues an access token to the compute device that provides temporary access to a selection of the digital content stored in the content file system (Kaplan teaches par.76, lines 1-5 and par.121, lines 1-10).
For claim 4, Kaplan, Haeger , Subbanna and Cheng teaches the system of claim 1. Kaplan further teaches a metadata database service (Kaplan teaches 146 as shown in fig.1A) in communication with the content management business logic services (Kaplan teaches 112 as shown in fig.1A and 2) (the metadata does communicates with element 112 using thru element 148 in fig.2 and 3), the metadata database service maintaining metadata to be associated with the digital content (Kaplan teaches par.41,lines 1-6).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al (2020/0142549) in view of Subbanna US 12015619, Cheng et al (8065712) and Haeger et al (2014/0122866) and further in views of Ford et al (2017/0142076).
For claim 5, Kaplan, as modified by Haeger , Subbanna and Cheng, teaches the system of claim 1 except for metadata database service is in direct communication with the authentication and authorization service.
Ford teaches, similar cloud-native content management system, wherein the metadata database service (110 which Metadata is part of element 110 as shown in fig.1A and 5) is in direct communication with the authentication and authorization service (508 as shown in fig.5) (Ford teaches par.65,lines 10-14). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify metadata database service of Kaplan, as modified by Haeger , Subbanna and Cheng to include metadata database service is in direct communication with the authentication and authorization service as taught and suggested by Ford for the purpose of providing one or more secure sites for placing documents and messages to be transmitted over a secure virtual network and may allow authorized users to read or edit messages according to their level of authorization (Ford, par.58).
For claim 6, Kaplan, as modified by Haeger , Subbanna and Cheng and Ford teaches all the limitations as previously set forth and Kaplan further teaches that wherein the metadata database service maintains the set of access rules applied by the authentication and authorization service (Kaplan teaches in par.130, lines 1-7 and par.158, lines 1-8).
For claim 7, Kaplan, as modified by Haeger , Subbanna and Cheng and Ford teaches all the limitations as previously set forth except for a search engine for facilitating identification of the digital content stored in the content file system.
Ford further teaches a search engine (116 as shown in fig.1A) for facilitating identification of the digital content stored in the content file system (Ford teaches par.72, lines 1-11 and par.75, lines 1-5). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify the system of Kaplan, as modified by Haeger , Subbanna and Cheng to include a search engine as taught and suggested by Ford for the purpose of allowing a user to search all different stores (on premises, cloud, hosted and on local devices) with a single search (Ford, par.74).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al (2020/0142549) in view of Subbanna US 12015619 in views Cheng et al (8065712) and Haeger et al (2014/0122866) and further in views of Ford et al (2017/0142076) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Tran et al (2020/0097468).
Kaplan, as modified by Haeger, Subbanna and Cheng and Ford teaches all the limitations as previously set forth except for an event bus for real-time data streaming of digital content to the compute device.
Tran teaches, content management system, an event bus (234 as shown in fig.3, par.36, lines 9-14 describes the elements 200 as shown in fig.2 and 234 as shown in fig.3 can be one) for real-time data streaming of digital content to the compute device (Tran teaches par.58, lines 1-3 and par.59, lines 1-5 and par.61, lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify the system of Kaplan, as modified by Haeger , Subbanna and Cheng and Ford to include an event bus for real-time data as taught and suggested by Tran for the purpose of defining who has access to it or not, has a security model that can define “who is allowed to get what events when”, the system can provide a common abstraction layer for disparate, different customers and a common shared bus for events across different systems (Tran, par.36).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al (2020/0142549) in view of Subbanna US 12015619 in views Cheng et al (8065712) and Haeger et al (2014/0122866) and further in views of LeBert et al (2014/0344224).
For claim 9, Kaplan, as modified by Haeger, Subbanna and Cheng teaches all the limitations as previously set forth except for wherein the content file system is adapted to store a first version of a software model which can be selectively accessed and edited by the compute device in compliance with the set of stored access rules.
LeBert teaches, similar content management system, wherein the content file system is adapted to store a first version of a software model which can be selectively accessed and edited by the compute device in compliance with the set of stored access rules (LeBert, par.49, lines 1-5, par.65, lines 1-3, par.66, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify the system of Kaplan, as modified by Haeger , Subbanna and Cheng to include the content file system is adapted to store a first version of a software model as taught and suggested by LeBert for the purpose of identifying the differences in content between the uploaded file content and the most recent update stored in the website repository for the file content (LeBert, par.66).
For claim 10, Kaplan, as modified by Haeger, Subbanna and Cheng and LeBert teaches all the limitations as previously set forth except for a model update request service for receiving an electronic change request for the first version of the software model.
LeBert further teaches a model update request service for receiving an electronic change request for the first version of the software model (LeBert par.32, lines 1-4, par.71, lines 1-6 and par.53, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify the system of Kaplan, as modified by Haeger , Subbanna and Cheng include the content file system is adapted to store a first version of a software model as taught and suggested by LeBert for the purpose of determining information recognized by the scripting language, information to be matched to those found in data storage, availability of requested information, comparisons to information displayed and input/selected from the user interface or any other content retrieval within the method steps disclosed herein (LeBert, par.33).
For claim 11, Kaplan, as modified by Haeger, Subbanna and Cheng teaches all the limitations as previously set forth except for wherein the change request is submitted electronically from the compute device using domain-specific language.
LeBert further teaches wherein the change request is submitted electronically from the compute device using domain-specific language (LeBert par.41, lines 4-10). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify the system of Kaplan, as modified by Haeger , Subbanna and Cheng and Cheng to include the change request is submitted electronically from the compute device using domain-specific language as taught and suggested by LeBert for the purpose of determining information recognized by the scripting language, information to be matched to those found in data storage, availability of requested information, comparisons to information displayed and input/selected from the user interface or any other content retrieval within the method steps disclosed herein (LeBert, par.33).
For claim 12, Kaplan, as modified by Haeger, Subbanna and Cheng teaches all the limitations as previously set forth except for wherein the update model request service temporarily locks the first version of the software model upon receiving the electronic change request.
LeBert further teaches wherein the update model request service temporarily locks the first version of the software model upon receiving the electronic change request (LeBert par.96, lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify the system of Kaplan and Subbanna and Cheng to include the change request is submitted electronically from the compute device using domain-specific language as taught and suggested by LeBert for the purpose of not allowing any updates to the website files, during a certain period of time (e.g., while the website owner is on vacation) or from a certain IP address and to automatically lock certain website files after determining that they are high risk files (e.g., they have been rolled back a threshold number of times, or because of this, were identified as a high risk file, content, etc.) (LeBert, par.96).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al (2020/0142549) in view of Subbanna US 12015619 In views Cheng et al (8065712), Haeger et al (2014/0122866) and LeBert et al (2014/0344224) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Wooten et al (2017/0103209).
For claim 13, Kaplan, as modified by Haeger, Subbanna and Cheng as modified by LeBert, teaches all the limitations as previously set forth except for a job-handing process service for validating the change request for correctness and compatibility with the first version of the software model.
Wooten teaches, similar content management system, a job-handing process service for validating the change request for correctness and compatibility with the first version of the software model (the system includes validation service to verify the change is correct or not)(Wooten par.36, lines 1-8 and par.38, lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify the system of Kaplan, as modified by Haeger Subbanna and LeBert to include a job-handing process service for validating the change request as taught and suggested by Wooten for the purpose of ensuring that the device did not download any unauthorized software (e.g., malicious code) during the update process (Wooten, par.38).
For claim 14, Kaplan, as modified by Haeger, Subbanna and Cheng as modified by LeBert teaches all the limitations as previously set forth except for wherein the job-handling process service constructs a second version of the software model which incorporates the change request.
Wooten further teaches that wherein the job-handling process service constructs a second version of the software model which incorporates the change request (Wooten par.39, lines 1-5 and par.40, lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify the system of Kaplan, as modified by Haeger, Subbanna and Cheng and LeBert to include a job-handing process service for validating the change request as taught and suggested by Wooten for the purpose of performing the secure update boot sequence during the next boot process of the device after updating the software modules and to pass the secrets of the software modules from the previous versions of the software modules to the new versions of the software modules each time the device performs a software update on the software modules (Wooten, par.40).
For claim 15, Kaplan, as modified by Haeger, Subbanna and Cheng, as modified by LeBert, teaches all the limitations as previously set forth except for wherein the second version of the software model is unlocked for selective access and editing in compliance with the set of stored access rules.
Wooten further teaches that for wherein the second version of the software model is unlocked for selective access and editing in compliance with the set of stored access rules (Wooten par.97, lines 1-6 and par.156, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify the system of Kaplan, as modified by Haeger, Subbanna and Cheng and LeBert to include a job-handing process service for validating the change request as taught and suggested by Wooten for the purpose of performing the updates one or more software modules, the secrets from the previous versions of the one or more software modules are migrated to the new versions of the one or more software modules (Wooten, par.97).
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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.
The applicant’s arguments regarding new amendments limitations in claim 1, have been considered but is moot, because the examiner applied new art, Haeger et al (2014/0122866), that covers newly claimed limitation.
Regarding dependent claims arguments, said arguments are moot because the applied references are not considered to have alleged differences, and therefore are considered to properly show that for which they were cited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYUB A MAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-5037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, SHEWAYE GELAGAY can be reached at 571-272-4219. 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.
/AYUB A MAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2436 /SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436