DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. As noted in a telephone conversation on 27 October 2025, the amendment filed 20 October 2025 was not fully compliant with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.52 that all papers must be filed with black text and a white background. See also MPEP § 608.01. The amendment also was not fully compliant with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) that amended claims must be submitted with markings indicating all changes made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims.
In response, a supplemental response was filed on 27 October 2025. Applicant's submission filed on 27 October 2025 has been entered. By this supplemental response, Claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claim 10 has been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (see pages 11-13 of the response filed 20 October 2025) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings for informalities is withdrawn in light of the amended drawings filed 20 October 2025.
Specification
The objection to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is moot in light of the cancellation of Claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite are moot in light of the cancellation of the claim. The rejection of Claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “protected data type annotations in the application” in line 6. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the annotations embedded in the application as recited in line 3 or to distinct annotations. The claim further recites “the protection bindings specifying how particular data types used by the application correspond to particular categories of data and a data-handling scope for those data types” in lines 7-9. It is not grammatically clear what the phrase “and a data-handling scope” is intended to modify or be coordinated with. The claim further recites “the particular category of data” in lines 9-10 and 13. However, because the claim previously recited plural particular categories of data in lines 8-9, it is not clear to which of these categories these limitations are intended to refer. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “the particular category of data” in lines 3-4. However, because Claim 1 previously recited plural particular categories of data, it is not clear to which of these categories this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 9 recites “the particular category of data” in lines 2-3. However, because Claim 1 previously recited plural particular categories of data, it is not clear to which of these categories this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 11 recites “protected data type annotations in the application” in line 11. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the annotations embedded in the application as recited in line 8 or to distinct annotations. The claim further recites “the protection bindings specifying how particular data types used by the application correspond to particular categories of data and a data-handling scope for those data types” in lines 13-15. It is not grammatically clear what the phrase “and a data-handling scope” is intended to modify or be coordinated with. The claim further recites “the particular category of data” in lines 15 and 18-19. However, because the claim previously recited plural particular categories of data in line 14, it is not clear to which of these categories these limitations are intended to refer. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 12 recites “the particular category of data” in lines 3-4. However, because Claim 11 previously recited plural particular categories of data, it is not clear to which of these categories this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 19 recites “the particular category of data” in lines 3-4. However, because Claim 11 previously recited plural particular categories of data, it is not clear to which of these categories this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 20 recites “protected data type annotations in the application” in line 7. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the annotations embedded in the application as recited in line 4 or to distinct annotations. The claim further recites “the protection bindings specifying how particular data types used by the application correspond to particular categories of data and a data-handling scope for those data types” in lines 8-10. It is not grammatically clear what the phrase “and a data-handling scope” is intended to modify or be coordinated with. The claim further recites “the particular category of data” in lines 10-11 and 14. However, because the claim previously recited plural particular categories of data in lines 9-10, it is not clear to which of these categories these limitations are intended to refer. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claims not specifically referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karabulut et al, US Patent Application Publication 2009/0099860, in view of Anderson et al, US Patent Application Publication 2010/0242120.
In reference to Claim 1, Karabulut discloses a method that includes determining a category of sensitive data processed by an application based on annotations embedding into programming code and based on protection bindings that include associations between data types and categories, where the category is personal, private, confidential, protected, secret, or restricted data, or personally identifiable information (Figure 3, S302, paragraph 0053; see also paragraph 0059, confidential data); computing execution constraints for the application based on data compliance constraints for the category (Figure 3, S304; paragraph 0060); identifying target infrastructure to execute of the workload satisfying the execution constraints (Figure 3, S305; paragraph 0062); and deploying the workload for execution by the target infrastructure (Figure 3, S306; paragraph 0067). However, Karabulut does not explicitly disclose that the protection bindings include associations between data type annotations and categories defined in compliance rules.
Anderson discloses a method that includes using protection bindings that include associations between data type annotations in an application and categories of data defined in compliance rules of an organization, where the bindings specify how particular data types correspond to particular categories and a data handling scope (see paragraphs 0044-0045, annotation model includes categories corresponding to object attributes and privacy levels; see also paragraphs 0080-0084 and Figure 6, data streams annotated with privacy labels based on rules). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Karabulut to include the bindings and associations taught by Anderson, in order to manage and mitigate risks (see Anderson, paragraphs 0051-0052 and 0084).
In reference to Claims 2 and 5-9, Karabulut and Anderson further disclose associating execution constraints with the categories based on regulations or other constraints (see Karabulut, paragraph 0099, for example; see also Anderson, paragraphs 0035, 0044-0046).
In reference to Claims 3 and 4, Karabulut and Anderson further disclose generating a deployment manifest specifying the requirements and binding identifiers (see Karabulut, paragraph 0053, for example; see also Anderson, paragraphs 0032, 0046).
Claims 11-19 are directed to apparatus having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 1-9, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20 is directed to a software implementation of the method of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mackenzie et al, US Patent 12105819, discloses a system that uses annotations relating content to corresponding access rules and sensitivity categories.
Duppils et al, US Patent 12265612, discloses a system using an annotation policy having multiple categories with associated risk levels.
Huang et al, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0319130, discloses systems that annotate data with a privacy policy associated with categories of data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492