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
The instant application having Application No. 18/104,277 is presented for examination by the examiner. Claims 2, 10, and 18 are canceled. Claims 21-23 are added. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 19-23 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, and 17 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations, claims 17-20, in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejections under this statute have been overcome by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14-17, 19-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Shield Platform Encryption Architecture” by SalesForce with WayBack Machine publication date of Oct. 9, 2021 having the link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211009060329/https://a.sfdcstatic.com/content/dam/www/ocms/assets/pdf/misc/Platform_Encryption_Architecture_White_Paper.pdf, hereinafter SalesForce.
As per claims 1, 9, and 17, SalesForce teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a processor (Fig. 2);
a memory (Fig. 2) that stores code executable by the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:
managing a registry [multi-tenant environment; pg. 9] of data intermediaries [tenants/organizations of the multi-tenant environment; pg. 9] authorized to receive data from a data provider [SalesForce encryption service; pg. 11] and of data recipients [content object; pg. 9] associated with the data intermediaries;
preventing, in the registry, the data intermediaries from accessing identities of data recipients associated with different data intermediaries [identity fields are stored as ciphertext; pg. 9], wherein preventing access comprises storing the identities of data recipients for different data intermediaries using different encryption keys [each tenant has its own tenant secret; pg.7, paragraph number 5 and pg. 12]; and
providing data to at least one of the data intermediaries [customer of tenant retrieves records; pg. 12] and the data recipients based on the registry.
As per claims 3 and 11, SalesForce teaches operations further comprising providing the data provider with the different encryption keys (pg. 13) such that the data provider is authorized to access the identities [decrypts the names fields; pg. 7] of the data recipients associated with the different intermediaries of the intermediaries (pg. 30).
As per claims 4, 12, and 21, SalesForce teaches the different encryption keys are provided directly to the data provider by the different intermediaries [BYOK tenants secrets uploaded to the SalesForce platform; the admin of each org directly uploads the BYOK for its org; pg. 27 and 28].
As per claims 6, 14, and 23, SalesForce teaches providing the data comprises making the data available to the at least one of the data intermediaries and the data recipients over an application programming interface (pgs. 18, 20, and 26).
As per claims 7, 15, and 19, SalesForce teaches receiving one or more encryption keys for the identities of the data recipients of the different intermediaries from the different intermediaries over the application programming interface [BYOK uses API to deliver the secrets; pg. 20 and pg. 26, step 1].
As per claims 8, 16, and 20, SalesForce teaches providing the received one or more encryption keys directly to the data provider (pg. 20 and 26) and purging any copies of the received one or more encryption keys [key are never persisted; pgs. 8, 13 available to a provider of the application programming interface such that the identities of the data recipients are not decryptable by the provider of the application programming interface [secret can only be decrypted in the KDS not by the encryption server which provides the API to the user; pg. 26 and Fig. 11].
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, 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(s) 5, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SalesForce.
As per claim 5, 13, and 22, SalesForce teaches the different encryption keys comprise different asymmetric encryption keys such that the data provider can decrypt at least the identities of the data recipients of the different intermediaries [BYOK is sent with the tenant secret encrypted with the public key of the key derivation that was in the certificate. The KDS then decrypts the tenant secret key with the private key; pg. 28]. This shows the tenant org creating an asymmetric key pair that is uses with the KDS. That private key is needed to acquire the tenant secret to decrypt the identifies of data recipients. SalesForce does not explicitly teach that the data provider cannot encrypt data on behalf of the different intermediaries. However, based on the disclosure this an obvious conclusion if ‘encrypt data on behalf’ means to encrypt data using the tenant’s private key. There is no disclosure showing the data provider have access to a public/private key of the user. The certificate generated by the tenant on page 28 was a certificate belonging to the KDS. The tenant used the KDS’s public key in the certificate to encrypt the secret and the KDS used the corresponding private key to decrypt the secret. Since the KDS has no private key belonging to the tenant it cannot encrypt/sign anything and purport that it was on behalf of tenant. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because if the intermediaries do not have a certified private key of the tenant, it cannot encrypt data on its behalf. Only the one possessing the private key of the tenant can sign things on the tenant’s behalf.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R. VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7316. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30am - 5:00pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R VAUGHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431