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
This non-final action is in response to RCE filed on 11/13/2025. In this RCE, claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended, claims 11-12 are cancelled and claim 27-28 are added. Claims 1-10, 15, 17, 20-21 and 23-28 are pending, with claims 1, 8 and 15 being independent.
Priority
This application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to United States Provisional Application No. 63/214,179, filed June 23, 2021, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/27/2025 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim 28 recites “transmitting [ ] the re-encrypted data to the second computing system or a third computing system comprises changing a communication mode based on the one or more network conditions” and “the communication mode indicates a number of messages per transmission session”; however, there is no clear description for this subject matter described in the specification. The closest description is in paragraph 34, the paragraph indicates if transmission conditions are unfavorable, then the sender and the receiver, upon notification, may adapt their communication to send either fewer messages and/or shorter messages. Adjusting communication to send either fewer messages and/or shorter messages are not the same as changing communication mode. For instance, adjusting to send either fewer messages and/or shorter messages could be implemented within in the same communication mode.
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 of this title, 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, 8, 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (US 2021/0273914, filed Feb. 8, 2021), in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2010/0088499, Pub. Date: Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Hirota et al. (US 2023/0229798, PCT Filed: Jun. 11, 2020), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0066391, Pub. Date: Feb. 28, 2019).
As per claim 1, Cobb discloses a computing system that processes encrypted data (Cobb fig. 1, a computing system of a VPNAP and Cobb workflow of fig. 4 executed by a computing system of a VPNAP), comprising:
one or more processors (Cobb fig. 6, processing device 602); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Cobb fig. 6, memory 604), cause the system to perform:
receiving encrypted data from a second computing system (Cobb fig. 4 and para. [0045], at step 402, commences with receiving, by the computing system, an encrypted communication sent from a client device);
instantiating the computing system to process the encrypted data (Cobb workflow of fig. 4), the instantiation comprising:
decrypting the encrypted data (Cobb fig. 1& 4, a computing system of a VPNAP and para. [0045], The workflow 400, at step 404, then continues with decrypting, by the computing system, the encrypted communication sent from the client device);
performing the operation on the decrypted data (Cobb fig. 4 and para. [0045], at step 406, then continues with inspecting, by the computing system, the decrypted communication (which was originally sent from the client device); Cobb fig. 4 and para. [0046], At step 407, the workflow 400 continues with the computing system determining whether or not to block the decrypted communication (originally sent from the client device) according to a set of rules);
presenting an output indicating a result of the operation of the decrypted data (Cobb fig. 4, presenting output indicating a result to step 408 or to step 416); and
re-encrypting the decrypted data (Cobb fig. 4, Re-encrypting the decrypted communication at step 412); and
transmitting the re-encrypted data to the second computing system or a third computing system (Cobb fig.4, Sending the re-encrypted communication to the server at 414; Cobb para. [0048], The re-encrypted communication includes the same message, or a derivative of the message originally sent from the client device).
Cobb does not explicitly disclose:
determining a first portion of the encrypted data upon which an operation is to be performed;
decrypting the first portion of the encrypted data using a private key while retaining a second portion of the encrypted data in encrypted format;
performing the operation on the first portion of the decrypted data, wherein the operation is unable to be fully performed on the first portion of the encrypted data;
presenting an output indicating a result of the operation of the decrypted first portion;
in response to a modification of metadata corresponding to the decrypted first portion, generating a modified output in accordance with the modification of metadata, wherein the metadata comprises an access control policy;
after generating the modified output, re-encrypting the decrypted first portion, wherein re-encrypting the decrypted first portion disables the operation from being performed on the re-encrypted first portion; and
transmitting, based on one or more network conditions, the re-encrypted data.
Zimmer teaches:
determining a first portion of the encrypted data upon which an operation is to be performed (Zimmer fig. 4A and para. [0040], In block 412, it is determined whether an out-of-band update request has been received. An out-of-band update request may be described as a request to update data that has been received from a remote agent 270 … In block 414, the OOB management firmware 246 decrypts a portion of the contents of the data store 222 using a key from the private store 248. [The OOB management firmware needs to determine a portion of contents in order to decrypt the portion of the contents]);
decrypting the first portion of the encrypted data using a key while retaining a second portion of the encrypted data in encrypted format (Zimmer fig. 4A and para. [0040], the OOB management firmware 246 decrypts a portion of the contents of the data store 222 using a key from the private store 248. [Implicitly, decrypting a portion of contents indicates that the remaining/ second portion is still in encrypted format]);
performing the operation on the first portion of the decrypted data (Zimmer para. [0040], the OOB management firmware 246 updates the decrypted contents), wherein the operation is unable to be fully performed on the first portion of the encrypted data (Zimmer para. [0040], In block 412, it is determined whether an out-of-band update request has been received. An out-of-band update request may be described as a request to update data that has been received from a remote agent 270 … In block 414, the OOB management firmware 246 decrypts a portion of the contents of the data store 222 using a key from the private store 248. In block 416, the OOB management firmware 246 updates the decrypted contents. [These citations indicate that in order to perform updating data, at least a portion of a set of encrypted data/content needs to be decrypted. Thus, implicitly, the operation is unable to be fully performed on the first portion of the encrypted data]);
presenting an output indicating a result of the operation of the decrypted first portion (Zimmer para. [0040], the OOB management firmware 246 updates the decrypted contents); and
re-encrypting the decrypted first portion, wherein re-encrypting the decrypted first portion disables the operation from being performed on the re-encrypted first portion (Zimmer para. [0040], In block 418, the OOB management firmware 246 re-encrypts the updated contents so that the re-encrypted contents are stored in the data store 222. [Implicitly, re-encrypting the updated contents to protect the updated contents (i.e., to ensure the operation is not performed on the re-encrypted first portion)]).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Cobb in view of Zimmer for determining a first portion of the encrypted data upon which an operation is to be performed, decrypting the first portion of the encrypted data using a key while retaining a second portion of the encrypted data in encrypted format, performing the operation on the first portion of the decrypted data, wherein the operation is unable to be fully performed on the first portion of the encrypted data, presenting an output indicating a result of the operation of the decrypted first portion and re-encrypting the decrypted first portion, wherein re-encrypting the decrypted first portion disables the operation from being performed on the re-encrypted first portion.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of maintaining appropriate confidentiality requirements (Zimmer para. [0044]).
Cobb-Zimmer does not explicitly disclose:
decrypting the encrypted data using a private key;
in response to a modification of metadata corresponding to the decrypted first portion, generating a modified output in accordance with the modification of metadata, wherein the metadata comprises an access control policy;
after generating the modified output, re-encrypting the decrypted first portion;
transmitting, based on one or more network conditions, the re-encrypted data.
Hirota teaches:
in response to a modification of metadata corresponding to a decrypted first portion (Hirota para. [0071], the management server 11 acquires, from the file server 13, the encrypted file f1 and information on the access privilege designated for the saving location of the file f1 (step S208) … Then, the management server 11 encrypts the decrypted file f1 after changing the access privilege [metadata] according to the access privilege information acquired from the file server 13 (step S210); Hirota para. [0020], The file server 13 manages files [including f1 (i.e., first portion)] saved in a storage area provided inside or outside the file server 13), generating a modified output in accordance with the modification of metadata (Hirota para. [0073], the management server 11 changes the access privilege [metadata] of the file f1 from the users U1, U2, and U3, designated for the folder FD1 to the users U1, U4, and U5 designated for the folder FD2. This allows not only the user U1 but also the users U4 and U5 to use the file f1), wherein the metadata comprises an access control policy (Hirota para. [0073], the management server 11 changes the access privilege of the file f1 from the users U1, U2, and U3, designated for the folder FD1 to the users U1, U4, and U5 designated for the folder FD2. This allows not only the user U1 but also the users U4 and U5 to use the file f1);
after generating the modified output, re-encrypting the decrypted first portion (Hirota para. [0071], the management server 11 encrypts the decrypted file f1 after changing the access privilege [metadata] according to the access privilege information acquired from the file server 13 (step S210); Hirota para. [0020], The file server 13 manages files [including f1 (i.e., first portion)] saved in a storage area provided inside or outside the file server 13).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Hirota for in response to a modification of metadata corresponding to the decrypted first portion, generating a modified output in accordance with the modification of metadata, wherein the metadata comprises an access control policy; and after generating the modified output, re-encrypting the decrypted first portion.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of ensuring high confidentiality (Hirota para. [0027]).
Cobb-Kerschbaum-Hirota does not explicitly disclose:
decrypting the encrypted data using a private key;
transmitting, based on one or more network conditions, the re-encrypted data.
Anderson teaches:
decrypting the encrypted data using a private key (Anderson para. [0027], the private keys may be used individually or in combination to decrypt the secure render);
transmitting, based on one or more network conditions, data (Anderson para. [0139], Embodiments that stream samples to devices can adjust or filter the stream for different devices or different network conditions, without needing to store different formats for different situations. Stream quality may also be dynamically adjusted based on the quality of the network connection, potentially for each frame. Attributes of network connection quality that may affect the stream sent to each device may include for example, without limitation, bandwidth, latency, error rate, retransmission rate, connection setup time, connection stability, uptime, reliability, priority among transmissions sharing the network).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to applying techniques in decrypting data and transmitting data based on connection stability of Anderson to Cobb for decrypting the encrypted data using a private key and transmitting, based on one or more network conditions, the re-encrypted data.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of making the system inherently secure against piracy, and adjusting stream quality dynamically based on quality of network connection (Anderson para. [0133 & 0139]).
Per claims 8 and 15, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. As such, claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As per claim 23, Cobb-Zimmer-Hirota-Anderson discloses the computing system of claim 1, Anderson also discloses wherein the one or more network conditions comprise a stability over a network through which the transmission occurs (Anderson para. [0139], Stream quality may also be dynamically adjusted based on the quality of the network connection, potentially for each frame. Attributes of network connection quality that may affect the stream sent to each device may include for example, without limitation, bandwidth, latency, error rate, retransmission rate, connection setup time, connection stability, uptime, reliability, priority among transmissions sharing the network).
Similar rationale in claim 1 is applied.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (US 2021/0273914, filed Feb. 8, 2021), in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2010/0088499, Pub. Date: Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Hirota et al. (US 2023/0229798, PCT Filed: Jun. 11, 2020), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0066391, Pub. Date: Feb. 28, 2019), in view of Ursitti et al. (US 2017/0311367, Pub. Date: Oct. 26, 2017), in view of Wilson et al. (US 2019/0172044, Pub. Date Jun. 6, 2019).
As per claim 2, Cobb-Zimmer-Hirota-Anderson discloses the computing system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Cobb does not explicitly disclose wherein the decrypted data comprises textual data and the operation on the decrypted data comprises:
tracking a location of a sender and a receiver of the received encrypted data;
setting a geofence corresponding to the sender and receiver; and
generating an alert to the sender and the receiver when the sender or the receiver is determined to be within the geofence.
Ursitti teaches:
tracking a location of a sender and a receiver of received data (Ursitti para. [0006], transmitting location data from the source device to the server upon acceptance of the connection request from the recipient device, transmitting location data from the recipient device to the server upon acceptance of the connection request by the recipient device; Ursitti para. [0057], User A's and User B's mobile devices 110 and 112 send the initial location information or data to the server 116. At this point, the location information of each device (i.e., the latitude and longitude) is communicated to the server 116);
setting distance corresponding to the sender and receiver (Ursitti para. [0057], the location information of each device (i.e., the latitude and longitude) is communicated to the server 116, at which time an initial distance D1 between User A's device 110 and User B's device 112 is determined (step 234) either by the API 125 or map module; Ursitti par. [0006], the server establishes an initial distance between the source device and the recipient device upon receipt of location data from the source device and the recipient device); and
generating an alert to the sender and the receiver when the sender or the receiver is determined to be within the distance (Ursitti para. [0061], When the distance between User A's and User B's mobile devices is a predetermined fraction of the initial distance D1 a notification, such as a text message or push notification, is sent to both users to alert the users that a fraction of the initial distance D1 has been covered).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Ursitti for the decrypted data comprises textual data and the operation on the decrypted data comprises: tracking a location of a sender and a receiver of the received encrypted data; setting a distance corresponding to the sender and receiver; and generating an alert to the sender and the receiver when the sender or the receiver is determined to be within the distance.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of providing location sharing (Ursitti para. [0002]).
Notes: Ursitti teaches setting a distance and the sender or the receiver is determined within the distance (Ursitti para. [6, 57,60-61]). However, Ursitti does not explicitly teach setting a geofence, and the sender or the receiver is determined is within the geofence.
Wilson teaches:
setting a geofence (Wilson para. [0040], the defined range may be based on aspects of the geographic location indicated by the sender location data. For instance, if a geographic area is known to have a higher or more likely occurrence of fraud, the defined range to satisfy the matching of the sender location and candidate recipient location may be smaller than in a geographic location known to have lower or less likely occurrence of fraud; Wilson par. [0036], the candidate recipient location is compared with the sender location to determine if it is within a defined range ( e.g., within a defined geo-fence (e.g., location 124, etc.)), and
the sender or the receiver is determined is within the geofence (Wilson para. [0037], the defined range associated with the sender location is based on GPS location data of the sender's computing device (e.g., computing device 104, etc.). The sender location data includes a GPS location and the defined range may be a distance from the GPS location in any direction. The defined range results in a circular "geo-fence" around an acceptable area in which a recipient may claim the transaction)
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Wilson for setting a geofence corresponding to the sender and receiver; and generating an alert to the sender and the receiver when the sender or the receiver is determined to be within the geofence.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of establishing acceptable area for sender and receiver for communication.
Per claim 9, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. As such, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (US 2021/0273914, filed Feb. 8, 2021), in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2010/0088499, Pub. Date: Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Hirota et al. (US 2023/0229798, PCT Filed: Jun. 11, 2020), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0066391, Pub. Date: Feb. 28, 2019), in view of Ghorbangholi et al. (WO 2019/202305, Pub. Date Oct. 24, 2019).
As per claim 3, Cobb-Zimmer-Hirota-Anderson discloses the computing system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Cobb does not explicitly disclose wherein the decrypted data comprises a media, the media including an image, audio, video, or combination thereof; and the operation on the decrypted data comprises downsampling, compressing, or removing a feature of the decrypted data.
Ghorbangholi teaches:
the decrypted data comprises a media, the media including an image, audio, video (Ghorbangholi pg. 4, lines 32-33, the analysis is based on an original video feed acquired by the mobile device), or combination thereof; and the operation on the decrypted data comprises downsampling (Ghorbangholi pg. 5, lines 1-3, After decryption, the video feed is initially down-sampled (spatially and/or temporally, to reduce the processing burden) and other frame adjustments may be made e.g. to improve image quality etc.), compressing, or removing a feature of the decrypted data.
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Ghorbangholi for the decrypted data comprises a media, the media including an image, audio, video, or combination thereof; and the operation on the decrypted data comprises downsampling, compressing, or removing a feature of the decrypted data.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of reducing processing burden (see Ghorbangholi pg. 5 lines 1-5).
Per claims 10 and 17, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. As such, claims 10 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (US 2021/0273914, filed Feb. 8, 2021), in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2010/0088499, Pub. Date: Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Hirota et al. (US 2023/0229798, PCT Filed: Jun. 11, 2020), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0066391, Pub. Date: Feb. 28, 2019), in view of Lyle (US 2007/0237332, Pub. Date Oct. 11, 2007).
As per claim 4, Cobb-Zimmer-Hirota-Anderson discloses the computing system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Cobb does not explicitly disclose wherein the decrypted data comprises a media, the media including an image, audio, video, or combination thereof; and the operation on the decrypted data comprises augmenting a feature of the decrypted data.
Lyle teaches:
the decrypted data comprises a media, the media including an image, audio, video (Lyle para. [0034], the invention is a communication system including a transmitter, a receiver, and a serial link (e.g., a TMDS-like link) in which data (e.g., video data or audio data) are encrypted), or combination thereof; and the operation on the decrypted data comprises augmenting a feature of the decrypted data (Lyle fig. 7 and para. [0125], Consider the specific case that router 13 is a translating router implemented as a set-top box … The set-top box could also perform other processing on the data (in addition to expansion [augmenting]). For example, the set-top box could scale the picture to a different size (or aspect ratio) or add text [augmenting] overlays for instructions or programming guides. In order to perform any of these operations, the translating router would first decrypt the encrypted data from delivery path 21, then process the decrypted data, and then re-encrypt the processed data).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Lyle for the decrypted data comprises a media, the media including an image, audio, video, or combination thereof; and the operation on the decrypted data comprises augmenting a feature of the decrypted data.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of providing instructions or programming guides (see Lyle para. [0125]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (US 2021/0273914, filed Feb. 8, 2021), in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2010/0088499, Pub. Date: Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Hirota et al. (US 2023/0229798, PCT Filed: Jun. 11, 2020), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0066391, Pub. Date: Feb. 28, 2019), in view of Greevy (US 2020/0404005, Pub. Date Dec. 24, 2020), in view of Rakshit (US 2012/0131053, Pub. Date: May 24, 2012).
As per claim 5, Cobb-Zimmer-Hirota-Anderson discloses the computing system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Cobb does not explicitly disclose wherein the decrypted data comprises textual data and the operation on the decrypted data comprises:
determining when a particular alphanumeric combination or syntax appears in the decrypted data; and
highlighting the particular alphanumeric combination or syntax.
Greevy teaches:
the decrypted data comprises textual data (Greevy para. [0072], the security server can decrypt the email (if already encrypted) and scan the email for sensitive information) and the operation on the decrypted data (Greevy fig.3) comprises:
determining when a particular alphanumeric combination or syntax appears in the decrypted data (Greevy fig.3, decrypt email at S140; Greevy fig. 3 and para. [0072], the security server can decrypt the email (if already encrypted) and scan the email for sensitive information; Greevy para. [0065], For example, the security server can implement a set of preset rules correlating sensitive information to: a particular file type (e.g., PDFs) of an email attachment; certain alphanumeric sequences).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Greevy for the decrypted data comprises textual data and the operation on the decrypted data comprises: determining when a particular alphanumeric combination or syntax appears in the decrypted data.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of detecting sensitive/ personal information (see Greevy para. [0064]).
Cobb-Greevy does not explicitly disclose:
highlighting the particular alphanumeric combination or syntax.
Rakshit teaches:
highlighting the particular text (Rakshit para. [0013], System 5 allows a search function (e.g., a word or phrase search/find operation) to be performed with respect to (or based on) source code and/or temporary Internet files associated with a Webpage thereby allowing a user to locate (e.g., via a highlighting process) a specified alpha/numeric sequence (e.g., text) that is not viewable or displayed on the Webpage).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Rakshit for highlighting the particular alphanumeric combination or syntax.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of allowing a user to locate a specified sequence (see Rakshit para. [0064]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cobb (US 2021/0273914, filed Feb. 8, 2021), in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2010/0088499, Pub. Date: Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Hirota et al. (US 2023/0229798, PCT Filed: Jun. 11, 2020), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0066391, Pub. Date: Feb. 28, 2019), in view of Yu et al. (US 2012/0014482, Pub Date Jan. 19, 2012).
As per claim 6, Cobb-Zimmer-Hirota-Anderson discloses the computing system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Cobb does not explicitly disclose wherein the received encrypted data is from a single communication channel.
Yu teaches:
received data is from a single communication channel (Yu pg. 13 CLM 34, the one or more data streams are received on a single communications channel).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Yu the received encrypted data is from a single communication channel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of enabling detection of data streams contained within a signal (Yu para. [0010]).
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (US 2021/0273914, filed Feb. 8, 2021), in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2010/0088499, Pub. Date: Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Hirota et al. (US 2023/0229798, PCT Filed: Jun. 11, 2020), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0066391, Pub. Date: Feb. 28, 2019), in view of Hata et al. (US 2023/0078763, filed Mar. 2, 2021).
As per claim 7, Cobb-Zimmer-Hirota-Anderson discloses the computing system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Cobb does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to perform:
receiving an input regarding one or more features of the decrypted data;
inferring, using a machine learning model, one or more criteria of the operation on the decrypted data based on the input; and
applying the inferred criteria to the decrypted data.
Hata teaches:
receiving an input (Hata para. [0348], in the electronic device 20001, when a user performs the correct operation, the application provided by the application server 20506 may be used) regarding one or more features of data (Hata para. [0315], the processing unit 20401 detects correction target pixels [feature] included in the image data);
inferring, using a machine learning model (Hata para. [0300], The inference unit 20422 performs the inference process using the learning model), one or more criteria of the operation on the data based on the input (Hata para. [0300], In the inference process, for example, a process for correcting correction target pixels included in the image data is performed using the learning model. The correction target pixels are pixels to be corrected that satisfy predetermined conditions among a plurality of pixels in the image corresponding to the image data); and
applying the inferred criteria to the data (Hata para. [0316], When the inference process is performed as the detection step, the inference unit 20422 inputs image data to the learning model, outputs information for detecting correction target pixels included in the input image data (hereinafter referred to as detection information), and thus can detect correction target pixels; Hata para. [0300], The correction target pixels are pixels to be corrected that satisfy predetermined conditions among a plurality of pixels in the image corresponding to the image data).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Hata for receiving an input regarding one or more features of the decrypted data; inferring, using a machine learning model, one or more criteria of the operation on the decrypted data based on the input; and applying the inferred criteria to the decrypted data.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of correcting pixel defects (Hata para. [0159]).
Per claim 20, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. As such, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (US 2021/0273914, filed Feb. 8, 2021), in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2010/0088499, Pub. Date: Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Hirota et al. (US 2023/0229798, PCT Filed: Jun. 11, 2020), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0066391, Pub. Date: Feb. 28, 2019), in view of Kerschbaum et al. (US 2017/0103227, Pub. Date: Apr. 13, 2017).
As per claim 21, Cobb-Zimmer-Hirota-Anderson discloses the computing system of claim 1, Cobb does not explicitly disclose wherein the first portion comprises datasets; and the operation comprises a join operation on the datasets.
Kerschbaum teaches:
the first portion comprises datasets (Kerschbaum para. [0106], the database driver can query the database to perform the at least one operation (e.g., of the query, of a query part); Kerschbaum CLM 3, wherein performing the at least one operation of the query comprises decrypting at least a portion of a set of encrypted data stored in the database); and the operation comprises a join operation on the datasets (Kerschbaum para. [0112], The main task of the query is to join several tables with sales order information).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Kerschbaum for the first portion comprises datasets; and the operation comprises a join operation on the datasets.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of increasing the relevance of data.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (US 2021/0273914, filed Feb. 8, 2021), in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2010/0088499, Pub. Date: Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Hirota et al. (US 2023/0229798, PCT Filed: Jun. 11, 2020), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0066391, Pub. Date: Feb. 28, 2019), in view of Chang (US 2007/0143499, Pub. Date: Jun. 21, 2007).
As per claim 24, Cobb-Kerschbaum-Hirota-Anderson discloses the computing system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Cobb does not explicitly disclose wherein the modification of the metadata comprises an increased classification level corresponding to the first portion.
Chang teaches:
the modification of the metadata comprises an increased classification level corresponding to data (Chang para. [0060], Said file system provides a security mechanism to protect selected files from reading, writing, or even seeing by unauthorized person, wherein said selected files are changed to higher security level when a trigger condition occurred. Said changing security level might include changing access permission or changing visibility to a file or directory)
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Chang for the modification of the metadata comprises an increased classification level corresponding to the first portion.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of dynamically adjusting security level to protect data.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (US 2021/0273914, filed Feb. 8, 2021), in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2010/0088499, Pub. Date: Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Hirota et al. (US 2023/0229798, PCT Filed: Jun. 11, 2020), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0066391, Pub. Date: Feb. 28, 2019), in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2017/0332011, Pub. Date: Nov. 16, 2017).
As per claim 25, Cobb-Zimmer-Hirota-Anderson discloses the computing system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Cobb does not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving of the encrypted data comprises adjusting a duration or an amount of the encrypted data to be received over one or more sessions based on the one or more network conditions.
Yoshiba teaches:
adjusting a duration or an amount of data to be received over one or more sessions based on the one or more network conditions (Yoshiba CLM 1-2, adjust an amount of image data to be transmitted to a communication device [data to be received by a communication device] based on a change in a network condition of the specific one of the one or more networks used in communicating with the communication device … wherein the network condition comprises a bandwidth condition of the specific one of the one or more networks).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Yoshiba for the receiving of the encrypted data comprises adjusting an amount of the encrypted data to be received over one or more sessions based on the one or more network conditions.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of improving user experience according to network condition.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (US 2021/0273914, filed Feb. 8, 2021), in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2010/0088499, Pub. Date: Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Hirota et al. (US 2023/0229798, PCT Filed: Jun. 11, 2020), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0066391, Pub. Date: Feb. 28, 2019), in view of Marvit et al. (US 7,096,355, Date of Patent: Aug. 22, 2006)
As per claim 26, Cobb-Zimmer-Hirota-Anderson discloses the computing system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Cobb does not explicitly disclose wherein the second computing system is restricted from receiving decrypted data.
Marvit teaches:
a computing system is restricted from receiving decrypted data (Marvit col. 7 lines 5-7, the application shell is one example of a mechanism that prevents the user from receiving the decrypted message).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Marvit for the second computing system is restricted from receiving decrypted data.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of preventing data can be disseminated (Marvit col. 7 line 8).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (US 2021/0273914, filed Feb. 8, 2021), in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2010/0088499, Pub. Date: Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Hirota et al. (US 2023/0229798, PCT Filed: Jun. 11, 2020), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0066391, Pub. Date: Feb. 28, 2019), in view of Chundi et al. (US 2021/0297718, Filed: Mar. 23, 2020).
As per claim 27, Cobb-Zimmer-Hirota-Anderson discloses the computing system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Cobb does not explicitly disclose wherein generating the modified output comprises redacting or deleting a portion of the output in response to the modification of the metadata, wherein the modification of the metadata comprises at least one aspect of the access control policy being more restrictive.
Chundi teaches:
generating the modified output comprises redacting or deleting a portion of the output in response to the modification of the metadata (Chundi para. [0030], In order to provide access to only a portion of a media content item (e.g., to a user among the predetermined number of users determined as likely interested in the portion of the media content item), access rights associated with an account of a consumer user (or access rights associated with the original media content item file) may be modified to disable the user from viewing certain portions of the media content item. Alternatively, or in addition to such modification of access rights, a copy of the media content item stored at the server may be made in which portions (other than the desired portion to be provided to the user) are deleted. The consumer user may be restricted from viewing the original file (e.g., one or more files corresponding to the entire media content item) but may be permitted to view the modified file having only the portion of the media content item), wherein the modification of the metadata comprises at least one aspect of the access control policy being more restrictive (Chundi para. [0030], In order to provide access to only a portion of a media content item (e.g., to a user among the predetermined number of users determined as likely interested in the portion of the media content item), access rights associated with an account of a consumer user (or access rights associated with the original media content item file) may be modified to disable the user from viewing certain portions of the media content item … The consumer user may be restricted from viewing the original file (e.g., one or more files corresponding to the entire media content item) but may be permitted to view the modified file having only the portion of the media content item).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Chundi for generating the modified output comprises redacting or deleting a portion of the output in response to the modification of the metadata, wherein the modification of the metadata comprises at least one aspect of the access control policy being more restrictive.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of restricting user from viewing particular portions of content based on access rights (see Chundi para. [0030]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (US 2021/0273914, filed Feb. 8, 2021), in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2010/0088499, Pub. Date: Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Hirota et al. (US 2023/0229798, PCT Filed: Jun. 11, 2020), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0066391, Pub. Date: Feb. 28, 2019), in view of Papa et al. (US 2016/0044531, Pub. Date: Feb. 11, 2016), in view of FIX Trading Community (NPL: EP116 Message Throttle Parameters, Pub. Date: Jun. 19, 2017).
As per claim 28, Cobb-Zimmer-Hirota-Anderson discloses the computing system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Cobb-Anderson also discloses transmitting, based on one or more network conditions (Anderson para. [0139], Embodiments that stream samples to devices can adjust or filter the stream for different devices or different network conditions, without needing to store different formats for different situations. Stream quality may also be dynamically adjusted based on the quality of the network connection, potentially for each frame. Attributes of network connection quality that may affect the stream sent to each device may include for example, without limitation, bandwidth, latency, error rate, retransmission rate, connection setup time, connection stability, uptime, reliability, priority among transmissions sharing the network), the re-encrypted data to the second computing system or a third computing system (Cobb fig.4, Sending the re-encrypted communication to the server at 414; Cobb para. [0048], The re-encrypted communication includes the same message, or a derivative of the message originally sent from the client device), wherein the network conditions comprise any of a quality, a bandwidth, a stability, a speed, or a congestion of a network (Anderson para. [0139], Embodiments that stream samples to devices can adjust or filter the stream for different devices or different network conditions, without needing to store different formats for different situations. Stream quality may also be dynamically adjusted based on the quality of the network connection, potentially for each frame. Attributes of network connection quality that may affect the stream sent to each device may include for example, without limitation, bandwidth, latency, error rate, retransmission rate, connection setup time, connection stability, uptime, reliability, priority among transmissions sharing the network) over which the re-encrypted data is being transmitted (Cobb fig.4, Sending the re-encrypted communication to the server at 414; Cobb para. [0048], The re-encrypted communication includes the same message, or a derivative of the message originally sent from the client device).
Similar rationale in claim 1 applied.
Cobb-Anderson does not explicitly disclose:
transmitting, based on one or more network conditions, the re-encrypted data comprises changing a communication mode based on the one or more network conditions and the communication mode indicates a number of messages per transmission session.
Papa teaches:
transmitting, based on one or more network conditions, data (Papa para. [0079], the gateway node, being in the path of the call, will be able to detect congestion or overload before the core network itself. The gateway node can be configured for a given MME, a set of MMEs (in case of a MME pool), or another core network node or nodes, and can perform throttling to ensure a particular maximum call rate for each MME) comprises changing a communication mode based on the one or more network conditions (Papa para. [0096-0097], If the network element is overloaded, at step 904, the gateway may enter into a throttling mode … the gateway may continue to monitor the load at the MME (or other core network element) to determine when the MME has returned to a normal load state (i.e., is not overloaded))
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of Papa for transmitting, based on one or more network conditions, the re-encrypted data comprises changing a communication mode based on the one or more network conditions.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of providing solutions for mitigating congestion and overload (see Papa para. [0006]).
Cobb-Papa does not explicitly disclose:
the communication mode indicates a number of messages per transmission session.
FIX Trading Community teaches:
communication mode indicates a number of messages per transmission session (FIX Trading Community: Many exchanges provide "throttle" mechanisms that provide a method of slowing down messages, rejecting messages or disconnecting sessions above a certain rate of messages. A throttle is normally set at level of so many messages per unit of time per a session, on other exchanges an alternative method of number of outstanding requests may be used).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Cobb in view of FIX Trading Community for the communication mode indicates a number of messages per transmission session.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of reducing network congestion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayes et al. (US 20210390625) Data Processing System For Secure Data Sharing And Customized Output Generation;
Har (US 20090048976) Protecting Stored Data From Traffic Analysis;
Maillard et al. (US 20070113073) Method Of And Apparatus For Providing Secure Communication Of Digital Data Between Devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, KAMAL B DIVECHA can be reached at (571)272-5863. 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.
/VINH NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2453
/DHAIRYA A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights