DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on 6/12/2025.
Claim 1-20 are pending. Claim 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 20 are amended. Claim 1-20 are rejected.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 1-2, 6-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Woon Yong et al(PGPUB Document No. 20140370973), hereafter referred as to “Kim”, in view of Bagnall, Ken et al (PGPUB Document No. 20130262082), hereafter, referred to as “Bagnall”, in further view of McKeeman, Andrew (PGPUB Document No. 20130262082), hereafter, referred to as “McKeeman”, in further view of Kawakita, Masaru (PGPUB Document No. 20190266194), hereafter, referred to as “Kawakita”.
Claim 1(Currently Amended), Kim teaches An apparatus comprising: a graphical user interface configured to receive search queries for searching a law enforcement database of a plurality of subjects and associated data; and logic circuitry configured to: receive, via the graphical user interface, a first search query identifying a first subject of the plurality of subjects as a target of the first query(Kim, para 0013 discloses receiving a query (first) for a particular identified item “receiving a search request for an item from a user terminal in an auction house where an auction service provider server”; here the examiner interprets “law enforcement database” as any database that provides content searching options);
determine a value of a first search counter identifying a number of past searches for the first subject(Kim, para 0013 discloses determining the number of times a particular item/topic is being searched before “determining whether the number of times of searching the same item within a predetermined time exceeds a predetermined number of times by analyzing the search request received from the user terminal”);
receive, via the graphical user interface, a second search query identifying a second subject of the plurality of subjects as a target of the second query(Kim, para 0013 discloses receiving a query (first, second etc.) for a particular item “receiving a search request for an item from a user terminal in an auction house where an auction service provider server”); determine a value of a second search counter identifying a number of past searches for the second subject(Kim, para 0013 discloses determining the number of times a particular item/topic is being searched before a search topic “determining whether the number of times of searching the same item within a predetermined time exceeds a predetermined number of times by analyzing the search request received from the user terminal”);
But Kim does not explicitly teach compare the value of the first search counter to a first maximum number of searches for the first subject, wherein the first maximum number of searches is based on whether the first subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation; based on the value of the first search counter being less than the first maximum number of searches, (i) retrieve, from the law enforcement database, data associated with the first subject, and (ii) increment the first search counter; compare the value of the second search counter to a second maximum number of searches for the second subject, wherein the second maximum number of searches is based on whether the second subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation,
and wherein the second maximum number of searches differs from the first maximum number of searches; and based on the value of the second search counter being greater than or equal to the second maximum number of searches, cause the apparatus to refrain from searching the law enforcement database for the second subject.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data querying Bagnall teaches compare the value of the first search counter to a first maximum number of searches for the first subject(Bagnall, para 0061 discloses having a maximum threshold count for a queries “the count of DNS queries associated with the domain identifier in the DNS database can set to be the maximum rate threshold” ; para 0063 further discloses a comparison of number of query to the threshold “If the rate of DNS queries exceeds the maximum rate threshold, then the process proceeds to step 402 where a risk score is generated that is indicative of a cybersecurity risk” ), and (ii) increment the first search counter(Bagnall, para 0077 discloses incrementing the counter “The record update additionally specifies information to be returned from the DNS information database 106 in response to the update. For example, the record update can specify an update or increment to a count of DNS queries in a DNS metadata record and can further specify that the updated count of DNS queries should be returned in response to the DNS information database 106 receiving the update” ); compare the value of the second search counter to a second maximum number of searches for the second subject(Bagnall, para 0061 discloses having a maximum threshold count for a queries “the count of DNS queries associated with the domain identifier in the DNS database can set to be the maximum rate threshold” ; para 0063 further discloses a comparison of number of query to the threshold “If the rate of DNS queries exceeds the maximum rate threshold, then the process proceeds to step 402 where a risk score is generated that is indicative of a cybersecurity risk” ),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of tracking of query count and comparing count values to maximum allowed number of queries of Bagnall into retrieving queried subjects of Kim to produce an expected result of implementing query access control. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine cybersecurity risk by the rate of query and to implement risk mitigation actions based on the count/rate of the queries (Bagnall, abstract).
But Kim and Bagnall don’t explicitly teach wherein the first maximum number of searches is based on whether the first subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation; based on the value of the first search counter being less than the first maximum number of searches, (i) retrieve, from the law enforcement database, data associated with the first subject, wherein the second maximum number of searches is based on whether the second subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation, and wherein the second maximum number of searches differs from the first maximum number of searches; and based on the value of the second search counter being greater than or equal to the second maximum number of searches, cause the apparatus to refrain from searching the law enforcement database for the second subject.
However, in the same field of endeavor of incident querying McKeeman teaches wherein the first maximum number of searches is based on whether the first subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation; wherein the second maximum number of searches is based on whether the second subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation(McKeeman, para 0007 discloses querying incident (similar to law enforcement investigation incident) having active or open status “…responsive to determining the current status of the incident is active, querying a solution database for at least one solution corresponding to the type of incident”: where Bagnall, para 0061 discloses having a maximum threshold count for a queries),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of querying incidents with active status of McKeeman into determination of query count from past searches of Kim and Bagnall to produce an expected result of implementing query access control. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update or provide access to incidents that are open or ongoing (McKeeman, abstract).
But Kim, Bagnall and McKeeman don’t explicitly teach based on the value of the first search counter being less than the first maximum number of searches, (i) retrieve, from the law enforcement database, data associated with the first subject, and wherein the second maximum number of searches differs from the first maximum number of searches; and based on the value of the second search counter being greater than or equal to the second maximum number of searches, cause the apparatus to refrain from searching the law enforcement database for the second subject.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data querying Kawakita teaches based on the value of the first search counter being less than the first maximum number of searches, (i) retrieve, from the law enforcement database, data associated with the first subject(Kawakita, para 0198 discloses executing a query when the query count is less or equal to a count limit “When the execution count of the search processing within the time limit is less than or equal to the search count limit, the query adjustment unit 901 may acquire, from the API key database 105, an API key related to an API used when executing the search (Step S1005)”), and wherein the second maximum number of searches differs from the first maximum number of searches; and based on the value of the second search counter being greater than or equal to the second maximum number of searches, cause the apparatus to refrain from searching the law enforcement database for the second subject(Kawakita, para 0197 discloses stopping/suspending a query execution when a query count exceeds a count limit “When an execution count of the search processing within the time limit exceeds a search count limit as a result of the aforementioned totaling (YES in Step S1003), the query adjustment unit 901 suspends the search processing (Step S1004). The query adjustment unit 901 may notify the information acquisition unit 101 to suspend the search process.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of preventing query execution when execution count exceeds a limit of Kawakita into determination of query count from past searches of Kim, Bagnall and McKeeman to produce an expected result of implementing query access control. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply query access control based on previous activities of a query(Kawakita, para 0197).
Regarding claim 2 (Previously Presented), Kim, Bagnall, McKeeman and Kawakita teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Kawakita further teaches further comprising: a search history database comprising the values of the first and second search counters (Kawakita, para 0194 discloses determining/acquiring maximum or the limit value of query form a database “the query adjustment unit 901 may acquire the usage history information and the limiting information that are registered in the rate-limiting database 902”; para 0195 and element S1003 of Fig. 10 further detail out the limit determination “The query adjustment unit 901 determines whether or not a usage status (that is, an execution status of the search) of the information source 112 by the selected Wand 104 a exceeds a limiting value set to the limiting information (Step S1003)”).
Claim 6(Currently Amended), Kim teaches A method comprising: receiving, via a graphical user interface of a computing apparatus, a first search query for searching a law enforcement database of a plurality of subjects and associated data, wherein the first search query identifies a first subject of the plurality of subjects as a target of the first query(Kim, para 0013 discloses receiving a query (first) for a particular identified item “receiving a search request for an item from a user terminal in an auction house where an auction service provider server”; here the examiner interprets “law enforcement database” as any database that provides content searching options);
determining a value of a first search counter identifying a number of past searches for the first subject(Kim, para 0013 discloses determining the number of times a particular item/topic is being searched before “determining whether the number of times of searching the same item within a predetermined time exceeds a predetermined number of times by analyzing the search request received from the user terminal”);
receiving, via the graphical user interface of the computing apparatus, a second search query identifying a second subject of the plurality of subjects as a target of the second query(Kim, para 0013 discloses receiving a query (first, second etc.) for a particular item “receiving a search request for an item from a user terminal in an auction house where an auction service provider server”); determining a value of a second search counter identifying a number of past searches for the second subject(Kim, para 0013 discloses determining the number of times a particular item/topic is being searched before a search topic “determining whether the number of times of searching the same item within a predetermined time exceeds a predetermined number of times by analyzing the search request received from the user terminal”);
But Kim does not explicitly teach comparing the value of the first search counter to a first maximum number of searches for the first subject, wherein the first maximum number of searches is based on whether the first subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation; based on the value of the first search counter being less than the first maximum number of searches, (i) retrieving, by the computing apparatus from the law enforcement database, data associated with the first subject, and (ii) incrementing the first search counter;
comparing the value of the second search counter to a second maximum number of searches for the second subject, wherein the second maximum number of searches is based on whether the second subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation, and wherein the second maximum number of searches differs from the first maximum number of searches; and based on the value of the second search counter being greater than or equal to the second maximum number of searches, causing the computing apparatus to refrain from searching the law enforcement database for the second subject.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data querying Bagnall teaches comparing the value of the first search counter to a first maximum number of searches for the first subject (Bagnall, para 0061 discloses having a maximum threshold count for a queries “the count of DNS queries associated with the domain identifier in the DNS database can set to be the maximum rate threshold” ; para 0063 further discloses a comparison of number of query to the threshold “If the rate of DNS queries exceeds the maximum rate threshold, then the process proceeds to step 402 where a risk score is generated that is indicative of a cybersecurity risk” ), and (ii) incrementing the first search counter (Bagnall, para 0077 discloses incrementing the counter “The record update additionally specifies information to be returned from the DNS information database 106 in response to the update. For example, the record update can specify an update or increment to a count of DNS queries in a DNS metadata record and can further specify that the updated count of DNS queries should be returned in response to the DNS information database 106 receiving the update” );
comparing the value of the second search counter to a second maximum number of searches for the second subject (Bagnall, para 0061 discloses having a maximum threshold count for a queries “the count of DNS queries associated with the domain identifier in the DNS database can set to be the maximum rate threshold” ; para 0063 further discloses a comparison of number of query to the threshold “If the rate of DNS queries exceeds the maximum rate threshold, then the process proceeds to step 402 where a risk score is generated that is indicative of a cybersecurity risk” ),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of tracking of query count and comparing count values to maximum allowed number of queries of Bagnall into retrieving queried subjects of Kim to produce an expected result of implementing query access control. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine cybersecurity risk by the rate of query and to implement risk mitigation actions based on the count/rate of the queries (Bagnall, abstract).
But Kim and Bagnall don’t explicitly teach wherein the first maximum number of searches is based on whether the first subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation; based on the value of the first search counter being less than the first maximum number of searches, (i) retrieving, by the computing apparatus from the law enforcement database, data associated with the first subject, wherein the second maximum number of searches is based on whether the second subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation, and wherein the second maximum number of searches differs from the first maximum number of searches; and based on the value of the second search counter being greater than or equal to the second maximum number of searches, causing the computing apparatus to refrain from searching the law enforcement database for the second subject.
However, in the same field of endeavor of incident querying McKeeman teaches wherein the first maximum number of searches is based on whether the first subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation; wherein the second maximum number of searches is based on whether the second subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation (McKeeman, para 0007 discloses querying incident (similar to law enforcement investigation incident) having active or open status “…responsive to determining the current status of the incident is active, querying a solution database for at least one solution corresponding to the type of incident”: where Bagnall, para 0061 discloses having a maximum threshold count for a queries),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of querying incidents with active status of McKeeman into determination of query count from past searches of Kim and Bagnall to produce an expected result of implementing query access control. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update or provide access to incidents that are open or ongoing (McKeeman, abstract).
But Kim, Bagnall and McKeeman don’t explicitly teach based on the value of the first search counter being less than the first maximum number of searches, (i) retrieving, by the computing apparatus from the law enforcement database, data associated with the first subject, and wherein the second maximum number of searches differs from the first maximum number of searches; and based on the value of the second search counter being greater than or equal to the second maximum number of searches, causing the computing apparatus to refrain from searching the law enforcement database for the second subject.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data querying Kawakita teaches based on the value of the first search counter being less than the first maximum number of searches, (i) retrieving, by the computing apparatus from the law enforcement database, data associated with the first subject (Kawakita, para 0198 discloses executing a query when the query count is less or equal to a count limit “When the execution count of the search processing within the time limit is less than or equal to the search count limit, the query adjustment unit 901 may acquire, from the API key database 105, an API key related to an API used when executing the search (Step S1005)”), and wherein the second maximum number of searches differs from the first maximum number of searches; and based on the value of the second search counter being greater than or equal to the second maximum number of searches, causing the computing apparatus to refrain from searching the law enforcement database for the second subject (Kawakita, para 0197 discloses stopping/suspending a query execution when a query count exceeds a count limit “When an execution count of the search processing within the time limit exceeds a search count limit as a result of the aforementioned totaling (YES in Step S1003), the query adjustment unit 901 suspends the search processing (Step S1004). The query adjustment unit 901 may notify the information acquisition unit 101 to suspend the search process.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of preventing query execution when execution count exceeds a limit of Kawakita into determination of query count from past searches of Kim, Bagnall and McKeeman to produce an expected result of implementing query access control. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply query access control based on previous activities of a query(Kawakita, para 0197).
Regarding claim 7 (Previously presented), Kim, Bagnall, McKeeman and Kawakita teach all the limitations of claim 6 and Kawakita further teaches wherein the values of the first and second search counters and the first and second maximum number of searches are determined by accessing a search history database comprising the values of the first and second search counters and the first and second maximum number of searches(Kawakita, para 0194 discloses determining/acquiring maximum or the limit value of query form a database “the query adjustment unit 901 may acquire the usage history information and the limiting information that are registered in the rate-limiting database 902”; para 0195 and element S1003 of Fig. 10 further detail out the limit determination “The query adjustment unit 901 determines whether or not a usage status (that is, an execution status of the search) of the information source 112 by the selected Wand 104 a exceeds a limiting value set to the limiting information (Step S1003)”);
Claim 11(Currently Amended), Kim teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing apparatus to perform a set of operations comprising(Kim, Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 discloses a system with to perform search on particular topic/item ): receiving, via a graphical user interface of the computing apparatus, a first search query for searching a law enforcement database of a plurality of subjects and associated data, wherein the first search query identifies a first subject of the plurality of subjects as a target of the first query(Kim, para 0013 discloses receiving a query (first) for a particular identified item “receiving a search request for an item from a user terminal in an auction house where an auction service provider server”; here the examiner interprets “law enforcement database” as any database that provides content searching options);
determining a value of a first search counter identifying a number of past searches for the first subject(Kim, para 0013 discloses determining the number of times a particular item/topic is being searched before “determining whether the number of times of searching the same item within a predetermined time exceeds a predetermined number of times by analyzing the search request received from the user terminal”); receiving, via the graphical user interface of the computing apparatus, a second search query identifying a second subject of the plurality of subjects as a target of the second query (Kim, para 0013 discloses receiving a query (first, second etc.) for a particular item “receiving a search request for an item from a user terminal in an auction house where an auction service provider server”); determining a value of a second search counter identifying a number of past searches for the second subject (Kim, para 0013 discloses determining the number of times a particular item/topic is being searched before a search topic “determining whether the number of times of searching the same item within a predetermined time exceeds a predetermined number of times by analyzing the search request received from the user terminal”);
But Kim does not explicitly teach comparing the value of the first search counter to a first maximum number of searches for the first subject, wherein the first maximum number of searches is based on whether the first subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation; based on the value of the first search counter being less than the first maximum number of searches, (i) retrieving, by the computing apparatus from the database, data associated with the first subject, and (ii) incrementing the first search counter; comparing the value of the second search counter to a second maximum number of searches for the second subject, wherein the second maximum number of searches is based on whether the second subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation, and wherein the second maximum number of searches differs from the first maximum number of searches; and based on the value of the second search counter being greater than or equal to the second maximum number of searches, causing the computing apparatus to refrain from searching the law enforcement database for the second subject.;
However, in the same field of endeavor of data querying Bagnall teaches comparing the value of the first search counter to a first maximum number of searches for the first subject (Bagnall, para 0061 discloses having a maximum threshold count for a queries “the count of DNS queries associated with the domain identifier in the DNS database can set to be the maximum rate threshold” ; para 0063 further discloses a comparison of number of query to the threshold “If the rate of DNS queries exceeds the maximum rate threshold, then the process proceeds to step 402 where a risk score is generated that is indicative of a cybersecurity risk” ), and (ii) incrementing the first search counter (Bagnall, para 0077 discloses incrementing the counter “The record update additionally specifies information to be returned from the DNS information database 106 in response to the update. For example, the record update can specify an update or increment to a count of DNS queries in a DNS metadata record and can further specify that the updated count of DNS queries should be returned in response to the DNS information database 106 receiving the update” ); comparing the value of the second search counter to a second maximum number of searches for the second subject (Bagnall, para 0061 discloses having a maximum threshold count for a queries “the count of DNS queries associated with the domain identifier in the DNS database can set to be the maximum rate threshold” ; para 0063 further discloses a comparison of number of query to the threshold “If the rate of DNS queries exceeds the maximum rate threshold, then the process proceeds to step 402 where a risk score is generated that is indicative of a cybersecurity risk” ),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of tracking of query count and comparing count values to maximum allowed number of queries of Bagnall into retrieving queried subjects of Kim to produce an expected result of implementing query access control. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine cybersecurity risk by the rate of query and to implement risk mitigation actions based on the count/rate of the queries (Bagnall, abstract).
But Kim and Bagnall don’t explicitly teach wherein the first maximum number of searches is based on whether the first subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation; wherein the second maximum number of searches is based on whether the second subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation,
However, in the same field of endeavor of incident querying McKeeman teaches wherein the first maximum number of searches is based on whether the first subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation; wherein the second maximum number of searches is based on whether the second subject is associated with an active law enforcement investigation (McKeeman, para 0007 discloses querying incident (similar to law enforcement investigation incident) having active or open status “…responsive to determining the current status of the incident is active, querying a solution database for at least one solution corresponding to the type of incident”: where Bagnall, para 0061 discloses having a maximum threshold count for a queries),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of querying incidents with active status of McKeeman into determination of query count from past searches of Kim and Bagnall to produce an expected result of implementing query access control. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update or provide access to incidents that are open or ongoing (McKeeman, abstract).
But Kim, Bagnall and McKeeman don’t explicitly teach based on the value of the first search counter being less than the first maximum number of searches, (i) retrieving, by the computing apparatus from the database, data associated with the first subject, and wherein the second maximum number of searches differs from the first maximum number of searches; and based on the value of the second search counter being greater than or equal to the second maximum number of searches, causing the computing apparatus to refrain from searching the law enforcement database for the second subject.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data querying Kawakita teaches based on the value of the first search counter being less than the first maximum number of searches, (i) retrieving, by the computing apparatus from the database, data associated with the first subject (Kawakita, para 0198 discloses executing a query when the query count is less or equal to a count limit “When the execution count of the search processing within the time limit is less than or equal to the search count limit, the query adjustment unit 901 may acquire, from the API key database 105, an API key related to an API used when executing the search (Step S1005)”), and wherein the second maximum number of searches differs from the first maximum number of searches; and based on the value of the second search counter being greater than or equal to the second maximum number of searches, causing the computing apparatus to refrain from searching the law enforcement database for the second subject (Kawakita, para 0197 discloses stopping/suspending a query execution when a query count exceeds a count limit “When an execution count of the search processing within the time limit exceeds a search count limit as a result of the aforementioned totaling (YES in Step S1003), the query adjustment unit 901 suspends the search processing (Step S1004). The query adjustment unit 901 may notify the information acquisition unit 101 to suspend the search process.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of preventing query execution when execution count exceeds a limit of Kawakita into determination of query count from past searches of Kim, Bagnall and McKeeman to produce an expected result of implementing query access control. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply query access control based on previous activities of a query(Kawakita, para 0197).
Regarding claim 12 (Previously presented), Kim, Bagnall, McKeeman and Kawakita teach all the limitations of claim 11 and Kawakita further teaches wherein the values of the first and second search counters and the first and second maximum number of searches are determined by accessing a search history database comprising the values of the first and second search counters and the first and second maximum number of searches (Kawakita, para 0194 discloses determining/acquiring maximum or the limit value of query form a database “the query adjustment unit 901 may acquire the usage history information and the limiting information that are registered in the rate-limiting database 902”; para 0195 and element S1003 of Fig. 10 further detail out the limit determination “The query adjustment unit 901 determines whether or not a usage status (that is, an execution status of the search) of the information source 112 by the selected Wand 104 a exceeds a limiting value set to the limiting information (Step S1003)”).
Claim 3, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Woon Yong et al(PGPUB Document No. 20140370973), hereafter referred as to “Kim”, in view of Bagnall, Ken et al (PGPUB Document No. 20130262082), hereafter, referred to as “Bagnall”, in further view of McKeeman, Andrew (PGPUB Document No. 20130262082), hereafter, referred to as “McKeeman”, in view of Kawakita, Masaru (PGPUB Document No. 20190266194), hereafter, referred to as “Kawakita”, in further view of Hansen, Andrew et al (PGPUB Document No. 20120185474), hereafter, referred to as “Hansen”.
Regarding claim 3(Currently Amended), Kim, Bagnall, McKeeman and Kawakita teach all the limitations of claim 2 and Kim further teaches determine a value of a third search counter identifying a number of past searches for the third subject(Kim, para 0013 discloses determining the number of times a particular item/topic is being searched before “determining whether the number of times of searching the same item within a predetermined time exceeds a predetermined number of times by analyzing the search request received from the user terminal”); compare the value of the third search counter to a third maximum number of searches for the third subject(Bagnall, para 0061 discloses having a maximum threshold count for a queries “the count of DNS queries associated with the domain identifier in the DNS database can set to be the maximum rate threshold” ; para 0063 further discloses a comparison of number of query to the threshold “If the rate of DNS queries exceeds the maximum rate threshold, then the process proceeds to step 402 where a risk score is generated that is indicative of a cybersecurity risk” );
But Kim, Bagnall, McKeeman and Kawakita don’t explicitly teach wherein the search history database also comprises data identifying one or more individuals excluded from any search restrictions for a third subject of the plurality of subjects, and wherein the logic circuitry is further configured to: receive. via the graphical user interface, a third search query identifying the third subject as a target of the third query; determine that the third search query was provided by one of the one or more individuals excluded from any search restrictions for the third subject; and based on the determination that the third search query was provided by one of the one or more individuals excluded from any search restrictions for the third subject, cause the apparatus to search the law enforcement database for the third subject even when the value of the third search counter is greater than or equal to the third maximum number of searches.
However, in the same field of endeavor of query access control of Hansen teaches wherein the search history database also comprises data identifying one or more individuals excluded from any search restrictions for a third subject of the plurality of subjects (Hansen, para 0027 discloses an authorized list of users who don’t have search restriction and accordingly allowing identified users to execute queries “the search engine server 775 receives authentication data associated with the search request user. The authentication data identifies access rights of the search request user to a subset of the private social network data according to at least one of the permission rules…… In one embodiment, the permission rules can be applied before search engine server 775 b performs a search of the one or more databases; or alternatively, the permission rules can be applied after performing a search of the databases”; where Kawakita, para 0194 discloses history database), and wherein the logic circuitry is further configured to: receive, via the graphical user interface, a third search query identifying the third subject as a target of the third query (Hansen, para 0026 discloses receiving any (third) search query “User 730 enters one or more keywords into a search box for requesting a search and search engine server 775 b receives the one or more keyword search terms for use in performing a search”); determine that the third search query was provided by one of the one or more individuals excluded from any search restrictions for the third subject(Hansen, para 0027 discloses identification of the requestor who don’t have search restriction and accordingly allowing identified requestors/users to execute queries “the search engine server 775 receives authentication data associated with the search request user. The authentication data identifies access rights of the search request user to a subset of the private social network data according to at least one of the permission rules…… In one embodiment, the permission rules can be applied before search engine server 775 b performs a search of the one or more databases; or alternatively, the permission rules can be applied after performing a search of the databases”; where Bagnall, para 0061 discloses having a maximum threshold count for a queries and para 0063 further discloses a comparison of number of query to the threshold);
Hansen further teaches and based on the determination that the third search query was provided by one of the one or more individuals excluded from any search restrictions for the third subject, cause the apparatus to search the law enforcement database for the third subject even when the value of the third search counter is greater than or equal to the third maximum number of searches(Hansen, para 0027 discloses an authorized list of users who don’t have any search restriction and accordingly allowing identified users to execute queries “the search engine server 775 receives authentication data associated with the search request user. The authentication data identifies access rights of the search request user to a subset of the private social network data according to at least one of the permission rules…… In one embodiment, the permission rules can be applied before search engine server 775 b performs a search of the one or more databases; or alternatively, the permission rules can be applied after performing a search of the databases”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of allowing query execution for listed users of Hansen into the feature of preventing query execution when execution count exceeds a limit of Kim, Bagnall, McKeeman and Kawakita to produce an expected result of allowing some users to make targeted queries without any restrictions. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enforce the data access rules for displaying or queried data only to those who are permitted (Hansen, para 0027).
Regarding claim 10(Currently Amended), Kim, Bagnall, McKeeman and Kawakita teach all the limitations of claim 6 and Kim further teaches determining a value of a third search counter identifying a number of past searches for the third subject(Kim, para 0013 discloses determining the number of times a particular item/topic is being searched before “determining whether the number of times of searching the same item within a predetermined time exceeds a predetermined number of times by analyzing the search request received from the user terminal”);comparing the value of the third search counter to a third maximum number of searches for the third subject(Bagnall, para 0061 discloses having a maximum threshold count for a queries “the count of DNS queries associated with the domain identifier in the DNS database can set to be the maximum rate threshold” ; para 0063 further discloses a comparison of number of query to the threshold “If the rate of DNS queries exceeds the maximum rate threshold, then the process proceeds to step 402 where a risk score is generated that is indicative of a cybersecurity risk” );
But Kim, Bagnall, McKeeman and Kawakita don’t explicitly teach receiving, via the graphical user interface of the computing apparatus, a third search query identifying a third subject of the plurality of subjects as a target of the third query; determining that the third search query was provided by one or more individuals excluded from any search restrictions for the third subject; and based on the determination that the third search query was provided by one of the one or more individuals excluded from any search restrictions for the third subject, allowing a search of the database for the third subject even when the value of the third search counter is greater than or equal to the third maximum number of searches.
However, in the same field of endeavor of query access control of Hansen teaches receiving, via the graphical user interface of the computing apparatus, a third search query identifying a third subject of the plurality of subjects as a target of the third query (Hansen, para 0026 discloses receiving search query “User 730 enters one or more keywords into a search box for requesting a search and search engine server 775 b receives the one or more keyword search terms for use in performing a search”); determining that the third search query was provided by one or more individuals excluded from any search restrictions for the third subject (Hansen, para 0027 discloses identification of the requestor who don’t have search restriction and accordingly allowing identified requestors/users to execute queries “the search engine server 775 receives authentication data associated with the search request user. The authentication data identifies access rights of the search request user to a subset of the private social network data according to at least one of the permission rules…… In one embodiment, the permission rules can be applied before search engine server 775 b performs a search of the one or more databases; or alternatively, the permission rules can be applied after performing a search of the databases”); and based on the determination that the third search query was provided by one of the one or more individuals excluded from any search restrictions for the third subject, allowing a search of the database for the third subject even when the value of the third search counter is greater than or equal to the third maximum number of searches (Hansen, para 0027 discloses an authorized list of users who don’t have any search restriction and accordingly allowing identified users to execute queries “the search engine server 775 receives authentication data associated with the search request user. The authentication data identifies access rights of the search request user to a subset of the private social network data according to at least one of the permission rules…… In one embodiment, the permission rules can be applied before search engine server 775 b performs a search of the one or more databases; or alternatively, the permission rules can be applied after performing a search of the databases”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of allowing query execution for listed users of Hansen into the feature of preventing query execution when execution count exceeds a limit of Kim, Bagnall, McKeeman and Kawakita to produce an expected result of allowing some users to make targeted queries without any restrictions. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enforce the data access rules for displaying or queried data only to those who are permitted (Hansen, para 0027).
Regarding claim 15(Currently Amended), Kim, Bagnall, McKeeman and Kawakita teach all the limitations of claim 11 and Kim further teaches determining a value of a third search counter identifying a number of past searches for the third subject (Kim, para 0013 discloses determining the number of times a particular item/topic is being searched before “determining whether the number of times of searching the same item within a predetermined time exceeds a predetermined number of times by analyzing the search request received from the user terminal”); comparing the value of the third search counter to a third maximum number of searches for the third subject(Bagnall, para 0061 discloses having a maximum threshold count for a queries “the count of DNS queries associated with the domain identifier in the DNS database can set to be the maximum rate threshold” ; para 0063 further discloses a comparison of number of query to the threshold “If the rate of DNS queries exceeds the maximum rate threshold, then the process proceeds to step 402 where a risk score is generated that is indicative of a cybersecurity risk” );
But Kim, Bagnall, McKeeman and Kawakita don’t explicitly teach the set of operations further comprising: receiving, via the graphical user interface of the computing apparatus, a third search query identifying a third subject of the plurality of subjects as a target of the third query; determining that the third search query was provided by one or more individuals excluded from any search restrictions for the
However, in the same field of endeavor of query access control of Hansen teaches the set of operations further comprising: receiving via the graphical user interface of the computing apparatus, a third search query identifying a third subject of the plurality of subjects as a target of the third query(Hansen, para 0026 discloses receiving search query “User 730 enters one or more keywords into a search box for requesting a search and search engine server 775 b receives the one or more keyword search terms for use in performing a search”); determining that the third search query was provided by one or more individuals excluded from any search restrictions for the third subject (Hansen, para 0027 discloses identification of the requestor who don’t have search restriction and accordingly allowing identified requestors/users to execute queries “the search engine server 775 receives authentication data associated with the search request user. The authentication data identifies access rights of the search request user to a subset of the private social network data according to at least one of the permission rules…… In one embodiment, the permission rules can be applied before search engine server 775 b performs a search of the one or more databases; or alternatively, the permission rules can be applied after performing a search of the databases”); and based on the determination that the third search query was provided by one of the one or more individuals excluded from any search restrictions for the third subject, allowing a search of the database for the third subject even when the value of the third search counter is greater than or equal to the third maximum number of searches (Hansen, para 0027 discloses an authorized list of users who don’t have any search restriction and ac