DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 30 March 2026. By this response, Claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, 19, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims do not clearly comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.121(c) that the status of every claim must be indicated, noting that at least Claims 9 and 19 are indicated with the status of “previously presented” but appear to include amendments, and therefore should have been indicated as “currently amended”. The amendments to the claims also do not fully comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) that amended claims must include markings indicating the changes made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. At least Claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, 19, and 20 include text which has been added but which has not been marked with underlining as required (or alternately, these claims appear to include text which was previously deleted from the claims), and at least Claim 20 also appears to include text, marked with double brackets for deletion, which was not previously present in the claim. As a courtesy and to advance prosecution, the claims have been treated as though they were fully compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(c). Applicant is reminded that all subsequent amendments must fully comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see pages 9-12 of the present response) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues (or re-raised issues which were previously resolved), as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 has reinstated “sensitive data” in line 2 and elsewhere. The term “sensitive” is a relative or subjective term which has not been clearly defined in the specification (noting that the specification includes in its description of sensitive data as including data that may be considered sensitive, which is a recursive definition, see pages 8-9 of the specification). The specification also does not provide a clear standard of comparison to determine whether data is sensitive. Therefore, this term is indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). The claim further recites “the particular category of sensitive data” in lines 11, 15, and 18. However, because the claim previously recited plural particular categories of data in line 10, 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 sensitive data” in line 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. Further, as noted above, the term “sensitive” is a relative or subject term which has not been clearly defined.
Claim 9 recites “the particular category of sensitive 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. Further, as noted above, the term “sensitive” is a relative or subject term which has not been clearly defined.
Claim 11 has reinstated “sensitive data” in line 7 and elsewhere. The term “sensitive” is a relative or subjective term which has not been clearly defined in the specification (noting that the specification includes in its description of sensitive data as including data that may be considered sensitive, which is a recursive definition, see pages 8-9 of the specification). The specification also does not provide a clear standard of comparison to determine whether data is sensitive. Therefore, this term is indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). The claim further recites “the particular category of sensitive data” in lines 16, 19-20, and 23. However, because the claim previously recited plural particular categories of data in line 15, 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 sensitive data” in line 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. Further, as noted above, the term “sensitive” is a relative or subject term which has not been clearly defined.
Claim 19 recites “the particular category of sensitive 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. Further, as noted above, the term “sensitive” is a relative or subject term which has not been clearly defined.
Claim 20 has reinstated “sensitive data” in line 3 and elsewhere. The term “sensitive” is a relative or subjective term which has not been clearly defined in the specification (noting that the specification includes in its description of sensitive data as including data that may be considered sensitive, which is a recursive definition, see pages 8-9 of the specification). The specification also does not provide a clear standard of comparison to determine whether data is sensitive. Therefore, this term is indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). The claim further recites “particular category of sensitive data” in line 7. Because there is no article before this term, it is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the particular category recited in line 3 or a distinct category. The claim additionally recites “the particular category of sensitive data” in lines 12, 16, and 19. However, because the claim previously recited plural particular categories of data in line 11, 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, and Gong, US Patent 9858166.
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).
However, although Karabulut discloses identifying target infrastructure satisfying execution constraints (for example, see paragraph 0062 and 0099), neither Karabulut nor Anderson explicitly discloses that a data compliance constraint restricts a workload from being executed in a particular location or identifying target infrastructure located in a location satisfying execution constraints. Gong discloses a method that includes computing execution constraints based on data compliance constraints that restrict a workload from being executed in a particular geographic location when the workload processes data matching a particular category of data and identifying target infrastructure located in a geographic location satisfying the execution constraints (see column 4, lines 13-45, locality grade determined for location of CI corresponding to the claimed infrastructure, and column 5, line 14-column 6, line 27, where locality metric is 0 if location fails to comply with locality regulation, and deployment is based on meeting the metrics/grades). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Karabulut and Anderson to include the identification of infrastructure satisfying a geographic constraint, in order to comply with state or national regulations regarding geographical restrictions on a workload (see Gong, column 4, lines 38-45).
In reference to Claim 2, Karabulut, Anderson, and Gong further disclose constraints restricting the workload from being executed in an additional location when the workload processes data matching a category (Gong, column 4, lines 13-45, and column 5, line 14-column 6, line 27; see also Karabulut, paragraph 0062 and 0099).
In reference to Claims 3 and 4, Karabulut, Anderson, and Gong further disclose generating a deployment manifest specifying the requirements and binding identifiers (see Karabulut, paragraph 0053, for example; see also Anderson, paragraphs 0032, 0046).
In reference to Claims 5-7, Karabulut, Anderson, and Gong further disclose deployment is performed subject to attestation of a geographic location of the target infrastructure where attestation is obtained from trust anchors and cross-checked (see Gong, column 4, lines 13-45, and column 5, line 14-column 6, line 27; see also column 3, lines 22-43, TPMs correspond to trust anchors).
In reference to Claim 8, Karabulut, Anderson, and Gong further disclose execution constraints computed based on industrial, governmental, or organizational requirements (see Gong, column 4, lines 38-45, and Karabulut, paragraph 0032).
In reference to Claim 9, Karabulut, Anderson, and Gong further disclose associating execution constraints with a particular category of data (see Karabulut, paragraph 0099; see also Anderson, paragraphs 0035, 0044-0046).
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.
Banerjee, US Patent 8631458, discloses a method for allocation of workloads that consider geographic and other constraints.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights