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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to amendment filed December 17, 2025.
Status of Claims
In the filed amendment, Applicant amended the claims and canceled claim 20. Claims 1-19 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/17/25, with respect to the previous rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the references teach “synchronizing and replicating the metadata for data entitlement for the plurality of users…” and “generating an API call… the metadata for the user including a data access level for the user…”.
In reply, Firstly, Applicant is reminded that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In this case, the above-mentioned claim elements are broad terms which are given their plain and generic meaning. Synchronizing and replicating are broad terms with overlapping meaning, where replicating items are seen as a type of synchronizing. Also, data entitlement is a broad term which encompasses access permission. Secondly, Bafna teaches metadata permissions for access control (see Bafna, at least ¶ 118), and teaches synchronizing metadata (see Bafna, at least ¶ 55) and updating/copying metadata permissions for data access/entitlement in the plurality of external file servers (see Bafna, at least ¶ 223,228,229). Furthermore, Bafna teaches generating an API call including the user request data, to the external server (see Bafna, at least ¶ 60 lines 7-17), and transmitting the API call to the external server (see Bafna, at least ¶s 69-70).
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 1,7,13,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miasojed et al (US Publication 20150319179) in view of Bafna et al (US Publication 20230068262) in further view of Lu et al (US Publication 20210084108).
In reference to claim 1, Miasojed teaches a method for data access management, the method comprising:
storing, by a processing device in a structured metadata catalog, metadata for a plurality digital content objects located in a plurality of external data stores, the metadata for data entitlement defining user access permissions for a plurality of users to the plurality of digital content objects; (see at least Abstract & ¶ 27, where Miasojed teaches storing content compliance/metadata rules/catalog for accessing a plurality of content on external content servers/stores, the compliance rules defining user access/entitlement rules/permissions for accessing the content)
the structured metadata catalog being a central metadata catalog that stores the metadata for data entitlement to the plurality of digital content objects using a common metadata model, the common metadata model including users, permissions, objects of the plurality of digital content objects, and data elements of the plurality of digital content objects; (see at least ¶s 21-24,27, where Miasojed teaches the metadata compliance rules being on a proxy/centralized server that stores the rules for content access, and having common rule parameters for each of the users including user rules/permissions, digital object descriptive parameters/objects, and file format descriptors/elements)
receiving, by the processing device, a user data request from one of the one or more users for one of the plurality of digital content objects; (see at least ¶ 27 lines 9-11, where Miasojed teaches receiving a content access request)
identifying, by the processing device, an external data store of the plurality of external data stores containing the requested digital content object; (see at least ¶ 27 lines 1-3, where Miasojed teaches identifying external servers containing the content) and
retrieving, by the processing device, the requested digital content object from the identified external data store, (see at least Abstract & ¶ 27 lines 11-13, where Miasojed teaches retrieving the content from the identified external servers) wherein the retrieving the requested digital content object includes:
receiving, by the processing device, the requested digital content object from the identified external data store; (see at least Abstract & ¶ 27 lines 11-13, where Miasojed teaches receiving the content) and
transmitting, by the processing device, the requested data content object to the user of the received user data request (see at least Abstract & ¶ 27 lines 20-23, where Miasojed teaches transmitting/providing the content to the user).
Miasojed fails to explicitly teach translating, by the processing device, the user data request into a native language of the identified external data store; synchronizing and replicating, by the processing device, the metadata for data entitlement for the plurality of users to the plurality of content objects located in the plurality of external data stores; and generating, by the processing device, an application programming interface (API) call to the identified external data store, the API call including the metadata for the user of the received user data request, the metadata for the user including a data access level for the user to receive the requested digital content from the external data store; and transmitting, by the processing device, the API call to the identified external data store. However, Bafna teaches requesting data from an external server (see Bafna, at least Abstract), and discloses formatting/translating the received user requests into a native format environment of external file server (see Bafna, at least ¶ 60 lines 1-4). Bafna further teaches metadata permissions for access control (see Bafna, at least ¶ 118), and teaches synchronizing metadata (see Bafna, at least ¶ 55) and updating/copying metadata permissions for data access/entitlement in the plurality of external file servers (see Bafna, at least ¶ 223,228,229). Furthermore, Bafna teaches generating an API call including the user request data, to the external server (see Bafna, at least ¶ 60 lines 7-17), and transmitting the API call to the external server (see Bafna, at least ¶s 69-70). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Miasojed based on the teachings of Bafna for the purpose of ensuring compatible protocol requests to different external virtualized environments and maintaining access consistency across the environments (see Banfa, at least ¶s 46,48).
Miasojed fails to explicitly teach the common metadata model in the central metadata catalog store including groups, roles, and resources; and synchronizing, by the processing device, the metadata for data entitlement to the plurality of content objects located in the plurality of external data stores through an orchestration of application programming interface (API) calls. However, Lu teaches metadata management on a centralized management server, where the metadata is for service requests (see Lu, at least Abstract and ¶s 120-122). Lu further discloses a common metadata model including service name/group, service addresses and parameters/roles, and service manners/resources (see Lu, at least ¶s 174-178), and also discloses orchestrating API calls to external services through mapping/synchronizing metadata for the service/data access/entitlement (see Lu, at least ¶s 130,131,157). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Miasojed based on the teachings of Lu for the purpose of facilitating communicating with different services thus improving resource usage and service response.
In reference to claim 19, Miasojed teaches metadata for the digital content including descriptive, structural, administrative, reference, statistical and legal metadata, see Miasojed, at least ¶s 21-25,27.
Claims 7,13 are slight variations of the rejected claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 2-6,8-12,14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miasojed et al (US Publication 20150319179) in view of Bafna et al (US Publication 20230068262) in further view of Lu et al (US Publication 20210084108) in further view of Hampson et al (US Publication 20170177891).
In reference to claim 2, Miasojed fails to explicitly teach the users are defined into one or more user groups, each of the groups including an approver designated for approving user data requests. However, Hampson teaches selection and approval of content requests (see Hampson, at least Abstract), and discloses grouping child accounts with parent accounts which are the approvers (see Hampson, at least ¶ 22 lines 1-9 and ¶ 23 lines 1-9). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Miasojed based on the teachings of Hampson for the purpose of managing and controlling content access.
In reference to claim 3, this is taught by Hampson, see at least ¶ 34 which teaches identifying an approver and generating a notification for the approver, and ¶ 36 lines 1-7 and ¶ 37 lines 1-8, which teach notifying the approver and receiving a response. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miasojed based on the teachings of Hampson according to the rationale given for claim 2 above.
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by Hampson, see at least ¶s 27-30 which access permission based on groups of users. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miasojed based on the teachings of Hampson according to the rationale given for claim 2 above.
In reference to claim 5, this is taught by Hampson, see at least ¶s 25-26 and ¶ 23 lines 8-14, which teach updating options by adding/changing user permissions, user groupings, and additional risk tolerance data. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miasojed based on the teachings of Hampson according to the rationale given for claim 2 above.
In reference to claim 6, this is taught by Hampson, see at least ¶s 24-25, which teach generating an update notification and providing the information the system server. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miasojed based on the teachings of Hampson according to the rationale given for claim 2 above.
Claims 8-12,14-18 are slight variations of the rejected claims 2-6 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
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 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.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
January 6, 2026