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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant presents amendments to claims 1, 12, and 20. All amendments have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 12, and 20 are sufficient to overcome the previous reference serving as the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn and a new search was conducted in light of the amended subject matter. As a result, a new reference was identified and a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is issued below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents arguments with respect to claim 1–20. All arguments have been fully considered.
As discussed above, the Examiner agrees that the previous reference serving as the basis for the anticipation rejection is insufficient to over all of the aspects of the claimed invention. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn and a new search was conducted. A new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is presented below.
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.
Claims 1–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 2022/0114267 A1, published Apr. 14, 2022) in view of Thomas (US 2009/0025063 A1, published Jan. 22, 2009).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20, Schwartz discloses: a method, comprising: identifying, by a processing device, a first object provided in a cloud-based environment (users creates content and add it to the cloud-based content management repository. Schwartz Figure 1 and ¶¶ 19 and 23.); generating, for the first object, a first object portion definition and a second object portion definition, wherein the first object portion definition relates to a first portion of the first object and the second object portion definition relates to a second portion of the first object (document portions can be defined as categories of information such as client contact information, client payment information, and contract values that may not be allowed to be access by a user. Schwartz ¶ 47.).
Schwartz does not disclose: associating a content level privilege with the first object portion definition; associating a role with the content level privilege; responsive to a request of a user associated with the role to access the first object, identifying access rights associated with the first object based on the content level privilege associated with the role; generating a second object based on the access rights, wherein the second object comprises the first portion and omits a reference to the second portion; and providing the user with access to the second object.
However, Thomas does disclose: associating a content level privilege with the first object portion definition (author can assign attributes to make each portion viewable or not according to a user role and associated privileges. Thomas ¶ 38.); associating a role with the content level privilege (each user role is given levels of access, for example a manager and executive role are given “Full Access” 98 to “Redacted Portion X” 94 including “Print Permission” 100. Thomas ¶ 38.); responsive to a request of a user associated with the role to access the first object, identifying access rights associated with the first object based on the content level privilege associated with the role (the client requests keys corresponding to the various redactions the use is entitles to see. Thomas ¶ 65. Passkeys are assigned for each role associated with each piece of redated content. Thomas ¶ 48. Received keys are used to unlock redacted portions. Thomas ¶ 66.); generating a second object based on the access rights, wherein the second object comprises the first portion and omits a reference to the second portion; and providing the user with access to the second object (a security officer, based on their role, is granted the rights to print the unlocked text whereas no one in any other role can print the unlocked text where the redacted area will be invisible so that the user doesn’t even know that the redaction exists. Thomas ¶ 44.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the defining and controlling document portion access based upon user roles of Schwartz with assigning object access permissions to user roles and determining privilege levels for specific objects and generation of a second object where references to portions not permitted to be access are omitted based upon the teachings of Thomas. The motivation being to manage and control access to an electronic document in a collaborative authoring environment. Thomas ¶ 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Schwartz in view of Thomas discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, further comprising generating an access control rule allowing the role to access the first portion of the first object (the content management system is configured to receive content restriction rules for content stored in the content management repository and include assignment of users and user group to content categories designating content as granted or blocked, where users are identified as a member of one or more groups or to have roles identified as having access grated or restricted to a category of the content. Schwartz ¶¶ 19, 21, and 25.).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Schwartz in view of Thomas discloses the limitations of claims 2 and 13, respectively, wherein the access control rule allows the role to perform, in relation to the first object portion definition, at least one of view the first object portion, modify the first object portion, delete the first object portion, or comment on the first object portion (portions or pages of the document are allowed to be rendered and displayed by permitted users, whereas unpermitted users will not be allowed to see portion, rendering the information hidden or redacted. Schwartz ¶ 47.).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Schwartz in view of Thomas discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, wherein the role is further associated with a third object portion definition that relates to a third portion of another object (content restriction rules apply to all or a subset of documents stored in the content management system. Schwartz ¶ 18. Document portions can be defined as categories of information such as client contact information, client payment information, and contract values that may not be allowed to be access by a user. Schwartz ¶ 47.).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Schwartz in view of Thomas discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, where the first object comprises at least one of a word processing document, a spreadsheet, a presentation, an image, an audio file, or a video file (Schwartz ¶ 42.).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Schwartz in view of Thomas discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, wherein providing the user with access to the first portion of the first object further comprises: receiving, from a client device associated with the user, the user request to access the first object (when the user requests access to the document, the content is filtered based on the role-based access privileges. Schwartz ¶¶ 19, 44, and 47.); determining an identifier associated with the user (the system requires users to log in to identify themselves with the system and is identified as a member of a group or having a particular role for permission purposes. Schwartz ¶ 25.); determining, based on the identifier, the rote associated with the user (identifying the user as having a particular role for permission purposes. Schwartz ¶ 25.); presenting at least a portion of the object on a user interface of the client device; and providing the user with access to the first portion of the object (the user is presented with filtered content, such that only the portions or pages of the document allows for the user to be accessed are rendered and displayed to the user, restricted content is redacted or hidden. Schwartz ¶ 47.).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Schwartz in view of Thomas discloses the limitations of claims 6 and 17, respectively, wherein presenting the at least a portion of the first object on the user interface comprises: determining, based on the identifier, that the role associated with the user prevents access to the second portion of the first object; and preventing display of the second portion of the object on the user interface of the client device (the system requires users to log in to identify themselves with the system and is identified as a member of a group or having a particular role for permission purposes. Schwartz ¶ 25. Identifying the user as having a particular role for permission purposes. Schwartz ¶ 25. The user is presented with filtered content, such that only the portions or pages of the document allows for the user to be accessed are rendered and displayed to the user, restricted content is redacted or hidden. Schwartz ¶ 47.).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Schwartz in view of Thomas discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13, respectively, wherein the first portion definition is associated with at least one of a regular expression (regex), a query statement, a command, or a descriptive statement that causes the first portion of the first object to be identified or derived (user permissions are assigned or associated with categories or content such that the content restriction rules user to compare against to determine whether to allow or deny access. Schwartz ¶ 21. The Examiner asserts that the disclosed categories would amount to the recited “regex” in this field of art.).
Regarding claim 9, Schwartz in view of Thomas discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the first portion definition is defined by another user with administrative privileges to a computer system associated with the first object (an administrator is empowered to configure the content management system with respect to requiring content creators to enter fields of information concerning the content. Schwartz ¶ 23. It would be understood that an administrator would have the privileges to define at least some restricted content.).
Regarding claim 10, Schwartz in view of Thomas discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein multiple users are associated with the role (users are identified by the content management system as a member or one or more groups or to have roles identified as having access granted or restricted to a category of the content. Schwartz ¶ 25. It is well known that a role can be configured to include multiple users, which would amount to a design choice.).
Regarding claim 11, Schwartz in view of Thomas discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the object is associated with multiple roles (users are identified by the content management system as a member or one or more groups or to have roles identified as having access granted or restricted to a category of the content. Schwartz ¶ 25. It is well known that an object can be associated with multiple roles, much like it can be associated with multiple groups, which would amount to a design choice.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Racovolis (US 2006/0242558 A1, published Oct. 26, 2006), documents are created where restricted portions are redacted by deletion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANCE LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. 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.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494