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 .
Note on How the Claims Distinguish Over the Closest Prior Art
The closest prior art references are:
US 20210312291 A1 to KATZ R M et al. Teaches a control system that has an application plane layer that receives instructions regarding operation of an entertainment state system. A control plane layer includes an adaptive control unit and interfaces with an application plane layer interface to receive information related to the instructions. A control plane is coupled to a control plane layer interface. A data plane layer includes an input interface to receive data input from one or more data sources. The data plane layer, coupled to the control plane layer interface, includes a title transfer network element to transfer digital assets through a blockchain.
US 11487850 B1 to Nieto, A. et al. teaches a method that involves activating a digital storage component associated with a user device in response to the user device connecting to a digital activation layer. A digital asset is deposited into the digital storage component by the digital activation layer, where the digital asset is associated with conditions for controlling a backend system in communication with the digital activation layer. An action to be performed on the digital asset is received from the user device. The action on the digital asset is performed by the digital activation layer, where the action delays or expedites a time period for initiating the action associated with a physical product. An ownership characteristic of the digital asset is updated based on performing the action on the digital asset.
US 11301578 B2 to Bhosale; Nilesh P. et al. teaches determining a sensitivity level for an instance of data, comparing the sensitivity level to one or more policies, and conditionally performing a backup of the instance of data, based on the comparing.
US 20220224535 A1 to COFFING involves receiving a request to access requested data accessible through endpoints, where the request is transmitted to an identity provider for authentication. A user authentication is received from the identity provider based on user attributes. Access is defined to portions of the endpoints based on a user context and security policies. An enriched token is generated based on the authenticated request and the defined of the access. Access to the requested data is controlled in accordance with the defined access provided by the enriched token. The defined access is dynamically updated based on modifications to the security policies.
However, independent claim 1 distinguishes over the closest prior art primarily because none of these references disclose, teach, or suggest, or in combination either alone or in combination : receiving, at an enterprise access layer, an asset request from an artificial intelligence (Al) agent comprising a first machine learning model, wherein the asset request is a request to access an asset managed by a private storage system associated with the enterprise access layer, and wherein the enterprise access layer includes a data plane configured to exchange assets managed by the private storage system associated with the enterprise access layer; analyzing the requested asset using a second machine learning model associated with the enterprise access layer to determine a sensitivity level of the requested asset, wherein the second machine learning model is trained to detect whether data includes private information; determining an asset control associated with the requested asset based on the sensitivity level, wherein the asset control specifies at least one condition for providing access to the asset; determining whether the asset control is satisfied by at least one of the asset request or the Al agent; and in response to the asset control being satisfied, facilitating access to the requested asset by the Al agent.
Claim 11 contains substantially the same limitations as claim 1 but is directed to a system that carries out the method steps of claim 1 and distinguishes over the prior art for the same reason. Dependent claims 7-10 and 21-23 depend from claim 1 and dependent claims 17-20 and 24-26 depend from claim 11 and distinguish over the closest prior art by virtue of their dependence on either claim 1 or claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Pending claims 1, 5-11 and 15-26 directed to a method or a system. Thus, each of claims 1,5-11 and 15-26 fall into fall into at least one category enumerated in 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, claim 11 recites:
receiving, […], an asset request from, wherein the asset request is a request to access an asset managed by a private storage system, and wherein the enterprise access layer includes a data plane configured to exchange assets managed by the private storage system associated with the enterprise access layer; analyzing the requested asset to determine a sensitivity level of the requested asset, wherein the second machine learning model is trained to detect whether data includes private information; determining an asset control associated with the requested asset based on the sensitivity level, wherein the asset control specifies at least one condition for providing access to the asset; determining whether the asset control is satisfied by at least one of the asset request or the Al agent; and in response to the asset control being satisfied, facilitating access to the requested asset.
This is an abstract idea that falls under the category of commercial or legal interactions (marketing or sales activities or behaviors) at least because the claims recite “configured to exchange assets”, an asset request, determining whether an asset control is satisfied and facilitating access in response to the asset control being satisfied. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.B.
The additional elements (beyond the abstract idea) of the claim include:
an enterprise access layer including a processor and storage hardware in communication with the processor, wherein the storage hardware includes instructions that when executed by the processor perform operations, associated with the enterprise access layer, an artificial intelligence (AI) agent comprising a first machine learning model, using a second machine learning model associated with the enterprise access layer, by the AI agent.
The additional claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality; and so, merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment of networked computers and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claimed invention does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately or in combination, they do no more than limit the above-identified abstract idea to the particular technological environment of networked computers and graphical user interfaces. Limitations that merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment fail to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) discussing Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (particular technological environment of cellular telephones). The claim does not include additional elements, individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and computer network components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent-eligible. Claim 1 recites substantially the same limitations and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason.
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 15,
The claims specify that facilitating fulfillment of the asset request includes transferring a set of keys for the cold wallet to a hot wallet. This is part of the abstract idea of mitigating risk – a fundamental economic principle or practice which is part of the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 16,
The claims specify that facilitating fulfillment of the asset request includes wherein facilitating fulfillment of the asset request includes: signing a transaction involving the asset on the cold wallet; and relaying the signed transaction using a hot wallet of the digital wallet system that is associated with the cold wallet. This is insignificant extra-solution activity involving data gathering and outputting and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 17,
The claims recite establishing a connection to the cold wallet and the requesting entity. This part of the abstract idea of fulfilling the request or a generic network function. In either case, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 8 and 18,
The claims recite the wherein the asset control matches an access control for an enterprise entity that submitted the asset to a private storage system. This is part of the abstract idea of fulfilling an asset request based on rules or conditions, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 9 and 19,
The claims recite a specific condition (security clearance level) for providing/fulfilling an asset request. This is part of the abstract idea of fulfilling an asset request based on rules or conditions, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 10 and 20,
The claims recite an additional rule or requirement related to fulfilling an asset request. This is part of the abstract idea of fulfilling an asset request based on rules or conditions, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 21 and 24,
The claims recite a second enterprise access layer associated with a second enterprise. The access layer is recited at a high level of generality and does not
Regarding claim(s) 22 and 25,
The claims recite a specific condition (intended usage) for providing/fulfilling an asset request. This is part of the abstract idea of fulfilling an asset request based on rules or conditions, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 23 and 26,
The claims specify that the sensitivity level indicates the presence of personally identifiable information. This specifies the kind of data or kind of risk and is part of the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Thus, each of claims 1,5-11 and 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the use of two machine learning models provided a technical solution to a technical problem at pages 7-8 of the remarks. This argument has been considered but is unpersuasive. The claims carry out an abstract idea of controlling access to assets based on conditions using generic computer components and does not represent an improvement in technology and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Applicant's arguments at pages 9-10 filed 12/15/2025 concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
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 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 BOLKO HAMERSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM to 6:00 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, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
BOLKO HAMERSKI
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BOLKO M HAMERSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights