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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 10 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gladwin et al. (US 2021/0133196 A1) and in view of Arikapudi et al. (US 2022/0374547 A1) and Blum et al. (US 11/138,340 B1).
For claim 1, Gladwin et al. teaches a method comprising: determining whether the operation is preapproved by the first data provider [approval and data based on restrictions, 0105: Gladwin]; in response to a determination that the operation is preapproved, permitting a performance of the operation on the dataset within a shared data space in a cleanroom configuration [executing queries at a database system, 0072; query performed based on passing rules, 0105: Gladwin], wherein responsive to the operation not being preapproved, denying the request to perform the operation on the dataset [restricting access based on configuration, 0105-0107: Gladwin], but does not teach obtaining a request to perform an operation, within a shared data space in a cleanroom configuration, on a dataset comprising first data related to a first data provider and second data related to a second data provider; and sharing information related to the request to perform the operation on the dataset within a shared data space in a cleanroom configuration with the second data provider the information related to the request to perform the operation on the dataset including a notification of the performance of the operation, or nonoperation, on the dataset.
Arikapudi et al. teaches obtaining a request to perform an operation, within a shared data space in a cleanroom configuration, on a dataset comprising first data related to a first data provider and second data related to a second data provider [multiple data providers, with either of the data providers executing the query, 0201; data is shared by data provider in shared data set, 0024-0028: Arikapudi]; and sharing information related to the request to perform the operation on the dataset within a shared data space with the second data provider the information related to the request to perform the operation on the dataset including a notification of the performance of the operation, or nonoperation, on the dataset [performing the query using the service manager on the platform and sharing data on procedures with other data providers, 0024-0036: Arikapudi].
Blum et al. teaches performance of the operation on the dataset within a shared data space in a cleanroom configuration [access and furnishing of queries and performing of tasks for a query in a clean room with shared data access, column 2, lines 31-55: Blum].
Gladwin et al. (US 2021/0133196 A1), Arikapudi et al. (US 2022/0374547 A1) and Blum et al. (US 11/138,340 B1) are analogous art because they are from the same field of querying for a data provider.
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the query approving and sharing with providers as described by Gladwin et al. preapproval by provider before querying as taught by Arikapudi et al. and data within a clean room as taught by Blum et al.
The motivation for doing so would be for “secure storage and access of database data” [0003: Arikapudi].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gladwin et al. (US 2021/0133196 A1) with Arikapudi et al. (US 2022/0374547 A1) and Blum et al. (US 11/138,340 B1) for rules based searching of data for provider.
For claim 2, Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the operation is preapproved comprises determining whether the second data provider has provided a preapproval of the operation [a second provider having an agreement to exchange data results, 0201: Arikapudi].
For claim 3, Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches:
The method of claim 1, the operation being a particular type of operation, wherein determining whether the operation is preapproved comprises determining whether the second data provider has provided a preapproval for the particular type of operation [provider giving access to other provider for first query, 0159-0161: Arikapudi].
For claim 4, Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein permitting the performance of the operation includes executing the operation on a first data corpus from the first data provider and a second data corpus from the second data provider [various data sources that can have operations performed by multiple data providers, 0024-0036: Arikapudi].
For claim 5, Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein the first data corpus includes anonymized entries [rules to have data that is private information, 0191: Gladwin].
For claim 6, Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a second request for a second operation from the second data provider; responsive to identifying an approval for the second operation, permitting execution of the second operation on at least a portion of the first data relating to the first data provider [receiving query from second entity with proper access permission to data from first data, 0436: Gladwin].
For claim 7, Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches:
The method of claim 6, further comprising sharing information related to the second operation with the first data provider [second query related with various entities, 0436: Gladwin].
Claim 8 is a system of the method taught by claim 1. Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 9 is a system of the method taught by claim 2. Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 10 is a system of the method taught by claim 3. Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 11 is a system of the method taught by claim 4. Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 12 is a system of the method taught by claim 5. Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 5 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 13 is a system of the method taught by claim 6. Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 6 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 14 is a system of the method taught by claim 7. Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 7 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 15 is a medium of the method taught by claim 1. Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 16 is a medium of the method taught by claim 2. Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 17 is a medium of the method taught by claim 3. Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 18 is a medium of the method taught by claim 4. Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 19 is a medium of the method taught by claim 5. Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 5 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 20 is a medium of the method taught by claim 6. Gladwin et al., Arikapudi et al. and Blum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 6 for the reasons stated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered and the rejection has been updated to address the amended language in the claims. The rejection is addressed in detail above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection.
Conclusion
The Examiner requests, in response to this Office action, that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJITH M JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-1763. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: Flexible Hours.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. 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.
/AJITH JACOB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
11/15/2025