DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the instant Amendment, claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 01/16/2026 with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, which were necessitated by amendment.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odinak (U.S. Pub. 20140129831 A1; Hereinafter “Odinak”) in view of Paris et al. (U.S. Pub. 20180260469 A1; Hereinafter “Paris”) and Gaijar et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200202034 A1; Hereinafter “Gaijar”).
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Odinak teaches a method comprising (Odinak: para [0032-0033], “a method for individual message encryption,”):
encrypting, by one or more processors, transcripts of conversations corresponding to multiple users, the transcripts being encrypted with a transcript encryption key (Odinak: fig. 3-5, para[0015], [0033-0036], “A plurality of messages with sensitive information is received (block 61). Each message can include text, such as text that is digitally encoded from voice utterances received during a call, text messages, and email. Other types of messages are possible, such as images. An encryption key is randomly generated for each message (block 62)… Each message can be divided into two or more records (block 63) of predetermined length. Each record includes a portion of the message content…. Each record is encrypted (block 65) using the randomly generated key for the message from which the records originate. Alternatively, each record can be separately encrypted” Odinak teaches encrypting conversation/transcript data corresponding to users, including text digitally encoded from voice utterances received during a call, wherein the message may be divided into records comprising portions of the message content and the records are encrypted using an encryption key generated for the message, further see the disclosure separating a voice recording into business and user strands);
indexing, by the one or more processors, (Odinak: fig. 6, para [34-36], “The encrypted portion of the records can include sensitive data, which can be located by separating a voice recording into business and user strand…Once the records of the message are encrypted, the message is stored in a database (block 66)” para [46], “A first index 81 stores messages 82 and each of the individual records associated with the message. Each message can be identified by a name of the message, content of the message, identifier of the user sending the message, or other metadata of the message, such as the date and time of the call associated with the message.” Odinak teaches indexing message portions by identifiers that correspond to the user, therefore, first portions of transcript correspond to the first user).
Odinak teaches indexed records but does not teach indexing only first portion and being indexed by first index data that indexes only the first portions, the first index data to be encrypted with a first index encryption key that corresponds to the first user; identifying, by the one or more processors, a first index encryption key that corresponds to the first user, the first index encryption key being distinct from the transcript encryption key with which the transcripts are encrypted; and encrypting, by the one or more processors, the first index data that indexes the first portions of the transcripts and corresponds to the first user with the first index encryption key that corresponds to the first user and is distinct from the transcript encryption key
However, in the related art Paris teaches indexing only first portion…… and being indexed by first index data that indexes only the first portions (Paris: para [0112-0113], “there may be one token index per document collection…a separate token index may be provided for each user…on email systems that store multiple email messages per document, the client application may implement additional abstraction layers to create a virtual separation of each message within its containing document. This would enable each message to be indexed independently....more than one trie index may index portions of the same document collection. For example, an individual user may index their “own” documents separately even if the documents already are included in a companywide-index.”, Odinak, para [0034] supplies the division into distinct portions (i.e. the voice recording is separated into a business strand and a user strand, and the user strand corresponds to the caller). Paris supplies the separate indexing architecture. Paris teaches a separate token index for each user, permits virtual separation so that individual messages can be indexed independently, and teaches that more than one trie index may index portions of the same document collection, with an individual user indexing the user's “own” documents separately. Applied to Odinak's user strand, the first user portions are placed indexed in the index corresponding to that user rather than the index corresponding to other users), the first index data to be encrypted with a first index encryption key particular encoded token index based on the document collection, client, user, and that the token index may be encrypted. Paris further teaches using a cipher suite to encrypt each cell of that token index.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Odinak to employ separate user specific indices as taught by Paris in order to permit each user to search that user's own information independently from information associated with other users, Paris expressly teaching a separate token index for each user and independent indexing of messages and portions of a document collection (Paris para [0112]).
Odinak in view of Paris does not teach the first index encryption key corresponds to the first user; identifying, by the one or more processors, a first index encryption key that corresponds to the first user, the first index encryption key being distinct from the transcript encryption key with which the transcripts are encrypted; and encrypting, by the one or more processors, the first index data that indexes the first portions of the transcripts and corresponds to the first user with the first index encryption key that corresponds to the first user and is distinct from the transcript encryption key.
However, in the related art, Gaijar teaches a first index encryption key that corresponds to the first user (Gaijar: para[27-28], “The indexing module 104 may obtain unique index keys from credential store 109 to generate and encrypt each index 1, index 2 to index N, using distinct index keys.” Gaijar teaches encryption of user-specific indices with distinct keys corresponding to each user; when applied to Odinak’s user-indexed records, the index data is encrypted by per user index key.);
identifying, by the one or more processors, a first index encryption key that corresponds to the first user, the first index encryption key being distinct from the transcript encryption key with which the transcripts are encrypted (Gaijar, para. [0027-0030], Gaijar teaches each archive has its corresponding index and corresponding user key; obtains unique index keys for respective indices, and generates a new unique index key applicable to each archive, “Each of these archives 1 to N are associated with a corresponding index 1, 2 to N, each index corresponding to a unique path 1, 2 to N. The indices 1 to N may further be stored on storage, e.g., storage 132, though other configurations are also contemplated. Each of the archives 1 to N also have a corresponding unique user key, wherein each key may belong to a different user.” And para. [0028] “the system 100, and therefore the encryption module 102, may operate across storage devices and file systems, encrypting data on different devices. Thus at a granular level, the encryption module 102 may encrypt data on the file system 120 using a user key, distinct for each archive, from credential store 109 to generate archives 1, 2 to N, each archive corresponding to a particular path on the file system 120…The indexing module 104 may obtain unique index keys from credential store 109 to generate and encrypt each index 1, index 2 to index N, using distinct index keys.”); and
encrypting, by the one or more processors, the first index data that indexes the first portions of the transcripts and corresponds to the first user with the first index encryption key that corresponds to the first user and is distinct from the transcript encryption key (Gaijar, para. [0027-0028], [0032], [0037-0039], “The indexing module 104 may obtain unique index keys from credential store 109 to generate and encrypt each index 1, index 2 to index N, using distinct index keys. The index keys may be encrypted by the encryption module 102 and stored in storage until a user provides the same user key that was used to encrypt the index key. The search module 106 may receive search requests from a client 140 and search each archive using the indices 1 to N. The authentication module 108 may authenticate the client 140 and generate the index key used for generating the indices 1 to N.”, Paris supplies the user specific index architecture; while Gaijar supplies the distinct index key and encrypting index data with that key)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to encrypt the respective user specific index using a separate index key as taught by Gaijar in order to protect the searchable index data independently from the underlying encrypted data while retaining search functionality, Gaijar teaching respective index keys for corresponding encrypted archives/indices and recognizing the desirability of protecting index data without using a common encryption key across differently associated archives (Gaijar, para [0004-0005]).
Furthermore, Odinak also teaches the hardware components of claims 8 and 15 such as a memory comprising instructions; and one or more computer processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising (Odinak: para[32-33], “consisting of a central processing unit (CPU), random access memory (RAM), non-volatile secondary storage, such as a hard drive, network interfaces”).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Odinak in view of Paris and Gaijar teaches the independent claim 1. Gaijar teaches storing the encrypted first index data of the first user in a corresponding first folder of a storage, the first folder corresponding to the first user (Gaijar: fig. 1, para [27], “Each of these archives 1 to N are associated with a corresponding index 1, 2 to N, each index corresponding to a unique path 1, 2 to N. The indices 1 to N may further be stored on storage, e.g., storage 132, though other configurations are also contemplated”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to encrypt the respective user specific index using a separate index key as taught by Gaijar in order to protect the searchable index data independently from the underlying encrypted data while retaining search functionality, Gaijar teaching respective index keys for corresponding encrypted archives/indices and recognizing the desirability of protecting index data without using a common encryption key across differently associated archives (Gaijar, para [0004-0005]).
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, Odinak in view of Paris and Gaijar teaches the independent claim 1. Gaijar teaches wherein: the first index encryption key that corresponds to the first user among the multiple users is unique among multiple index encryption keys that each correspond to a different user among the multiple users (Gaijar, para. [0027] [49],“Each of these archives 1 to N are associated with a corresponding index 1, 2 to N, each index corresponding to a unique path 1, 2 to N. The indices 1 to N may further be stored on storage, e.g., storage 132, though other configurations are also contemplated. Each of the archives 1 to N also have a corresponding unique user key, wherein each key may belong to a different user.” And para. [0028] “The indexing module 104 may obtain unique index keys from credential store 109 to generate and encrypt each index 1, index 2 to index N, using distinct index keys. The index keys may be encrypted by the encryption module 102 and stored in storage until a user provides the same user key that was used to encrypt the index key”, para[44], “, the file system 431 may mount multiple archives at different mount points, each with their own unique index”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to encrypt the respective user specific index using a separate index key as taught by Gaijar in order to protect the searchable index data independently from the underlying encrypted data while retaining search functionality, Gaijar teaching respective index keys for corresponding encrypted archives/indices and recognizing the desirability of protecting index data without using a common encryption key across differently associated archives (Gaijar, para [0004-0005]).
As per claims 4, 11, and 18, Odinak in view of Paris and Gaijar teaches the independent claim 1. Gaijar teaches wherein: the transcript encryption key with which the transcripts are encrypted is distinct from each of the multiple index encryption keys that each correspond to a different user among the multiple users (Gaijar: para[28], “Thus at a granular level, the encryption module 102 may encrypt data on the file system 120 using a user key, distinct for each archive, from credential store 109 to generate archives 1, 2 to N, each archive corresponding to a particular path on the file system 120…The indexing module 104 may obtain unique index keys from credential store 109 to generate and encrypt each index 1, index 2 to index N, using distinct index keys.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to encrypt the respective user specific index using a separate index key as taught by Gaijar in order to protect the searchable index data independently from the underlying encrypted data while retaining search functionality, Gaijar teaching respective index keys for corresponding encrypted archives/indices and recognizing the desirability of protecting index data without using a common encryption key across differently associated archives (Gaijar, para [0004-0005]).
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, Odinak in view of Paris and Gaijar teaches the independent claim 1. Gaijar teaches wherein: the identifying of the first index encryption key of the first user includes selecting the first index encryption key from multiple index encryption keys that are each unique among the multiple index encryption keys and that each correspond to a different user among the multiple users (Gaijar: para[27-28], “The indexing module 104 may obtain unique index keys from credential store 109 to generate and encrypt each index 1, index 2 to index N, using distinct index keys. The index keys may be encrypted by the encryption module 102 and stored in storage until a user provides the same user key that was used to encrypt the index key.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to encrypt the respective user specific index using a separate index key as taught by Gaijar in order to protect the searchable index data independently from the underlying encrypted data while retaining search functionality, Gaijar teaching respective index keys for corresponding encrypted archives/indices and recognizing the desirability of protecting index data without using a common encryption key across differently associated archives (Gaijar, para [0004-0005]).
As per claims 6, 13, and 20, Odinak in view of Paris and Gaijar teaches the independent claim 1. Gaijar teaches detecting a read request from the first user to read the first index data (Gaijar: para[54], “, the catalog manager browser receives a search request from a user along with a user key”);
accessing the first index encryption key of the first user (Gaijar: para [53-55], “The index manger obtains the encrypted index key for the archive from the credential store and validates the index key. In some aspects, validating the key comprises decrypting the encrypted index key using the user key, checking if a prefix of the key matches the match text, and then obtains the index key by removing the prefix”);
accessing the first index data based on the read request from the first user (Gaijar: para [53-56], “Based on the validated index key, a search node is identified to use for searching the archive. The Index manager requests that the Index Manager Agent for the search node 150 opens the index for the archive using the index key. The index manager agent requests that the cryptographic file system mount the archive at a mount point.”);
decrypting the first index data with the first index encryption key of the first user (Gaijar: para[56-57], “the cryptographic file system encrypts and decrypts the directory using an index key associated with only the archive being searched. The successful mount is reported back to the index manager agent. The index manager agent then requests that the encrypted file system open the index.”); and
providing the decrypted first index data in response to the read request (Gaijar: para[56-57], “Once the search is complete, the index manager closes the index and the search node unmounts the archive as described in FIGS. 5-6). The search results are returned by the catalog manager browser to the admin or user.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to encrypt the respective user specific index using a separate index key as taught by Gaijar in order to protect the searchable index data independently from the underlying encrypted data while retaining search functionality, Gaijar teaching respective index keys for corresponding encrypted archives/indices and recognizing the desirability of protecting index data without using a common encryption key across differently associated archives (Gaijar, para [0004-0005]).
As per claims 7, 14, Odinak in view of Paris and Gaijar teaches the independent claim 1. Gaijar teaches storing the encrypted first index data of the first user in a corresponding first partition of a storage, the first partition corresponding to the first user (Gaijar: para[27], “For example, the system 100 may perform indexing on data stored on file system 120 from storage 130 in a plurality of archives 1, 2 to N. Each of these archives 1 to N are associated with a corresponding index 1, 2 to N, each index corresponding to a unique path 1, 2 to N. The indices 1 to N may further be stored on storage, e.g., storage 132, though other configurations are also contemplated. Each of the archives 1 to N also have a corresponding unique user key, wherein each key may belong to a different user.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to encrypt the respective user specific index using a separate index key as taught by Gaijar in order to protect the searchable index data independently from the underlying encrypted data while retaining search functionality, Gaijar teaching respective index keys for corresponding encrypted archives/indices and recognizing the desirability of protecting index data without using a common encryption key across differently associated archives (Gaijar, para [0004-0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210166695 A1. a searchable transcript of an audio conversation and messages may be indexed so that one company's and/or group's messages are “indexed separately” in an index not shared with other groups and/or companies.
US . A conversation server system having a plurality of index components in an index, a respective index entry corresponding to a respective term and having a plurality of index components, a respective index component of the respective index entry identifying a message that is associated with the respective term.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYDIA L NOEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1628. The examiner can normally be reached Odd Weeks-Monday: 8:00 AM 4:00 PM, Tuesday & Wednesday: 9:00 AM 3:00 PM. Even Weeks-Monday: 8:00 AM 4:00 PM, Tuesday through Thursday: 9:00 AM 1:00 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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571)-270-5143. 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.
/L.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
