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
This office action is in response to the application filed on or reply to the remarks of 8/29/2025. The instant application has claims 1-12, 21-28 pending. The system, method and medium for providing access to data ana metadata based on access privilege. There a total of 20 claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I(claim 1-12, 21-28) in the reply filed on 8/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the flow diagram or an series of steps listed in the claims is not shown in any figures must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The steps relating to metadata being modified and having sufficient privilege must be shown in drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The claims mentions the values being calculated and being used, but the specifications is completely silent with regard to how it calculated or the steps involves, the only mention in Par. 007, 0080, 0113, 0134. However this is insufficient to fully describe the values.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12, 21-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. App# 18409743(Reference Application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim 1 can be derived from claim 1 + claim 13+ claim 14. Therefore, the instant claims are anticipated over claims of ‘743 application.
US App # 18409756
US App # 18409743
Comments
1. A method comprising: providing a first access request for requesting access to first metadata relating to first data stored within a data store; determining an access privilege for the first data and for the first metadata; when the access privilege is sufficient for access, providing access to the first metadata; and when the access privilege is sufficient for some access less than full access to the first metadata, modifying the first metadata to result in modified first metadata and providing access to the modified first metadata in response to the first access request, the modified first metadata providing information about the first data less than the information about the first data provided by accessing the first metadata.
1.A method comprising: storing first data within a data store; storing first metadata comprising a plurality of metadata elements in association with the first data; accessing a data element within the first data within the data store to form a data access; for the data access, determining new values for at least some of the plurality of metadata elements associated with the data element; and storing the new values for at least some of the plurality of metadata elements as further metadata in conjunction with the first metadata to collectively result in the metadata.
13. A method according to claim 1 comprising: providing a transform for transforming the first metadata to form transformed metadata, the transformed metadata for being used by processes for accessing at least one of the first data and data derived therefrom.
14. A method according to claim 13 wherein the processes are in execution on processing systems having access to the transformed metadata via a security process, the security process preventing the processes from having access to all of the first data.
The US Patent Application (US App # 18409743) anticipates claims (1-12, 21-28 ) of instant application, because the patent application claims (1-19, genus) teaches all the elements/features of the examined claim (a-b, sub-genus, e.g. has less of the same limitations than the patent application). Claims of instant application are effectively a subset of the claims in the patent. Thus, the entire scope of the patent application reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim. Therefore, a patent to the instant applicant would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should it issue after the genus (conflicting patent).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention These claims mentions values , but the specifications is completely silent with regard to how it calculated or the steps involved, the only mention in Par. 007, 0080, 0113, 0134. However this is insufficient to fully describe the values.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 105912949 to Zhou
Regarding claim 1, 21, Zhou discloses A method comprising: providing a first access request for requesting access to first metadata relating to first data stored within a data store(Page 4 ¶ “In a embodiment, the database ..”, data store); determining an access privilege for the first data and for the first metadata(Abstract & Page 4 Paragraph starting “In an embodiment, the data permission management method…” & Paragraph starting “according to a third aspect of the …”, the access request for user is checked for metadata and permissions); when the access privilege is sufficient for access, providing access to the first metadata(Step S508 & Step S510, the permission is for access is checked & Claim 1); and when the access privilege is sufficient for some access less than full access to the first metadata, modifying the first metadata to result in modified first metadata and providing access to the modified first metadata in response to the first access request, the modified first metadata providing information about the first data less than the information about the first data provided by accessing the first metadata(Page 8 ¶ starting Step S503, system access filtering).
Regarding claim 2. Zhou discloses A method according to claim 1 comprising: providing a second access request from a second requestor for requesting access to first metadata relating to first data stored within a data store; determining a second access privilege for the second requestor for the first data and for the first metadata less than full access to the first metadata; modifying the first metadata to result in second modified first metadata and providing access to the second modified first metadata in response to the second access request, the second modified first metadata providing information about the first data less than the information about the first data provided by accessing the first metadata(Page 8 ¶Step S503, the data aces filtering).
Regarding claim 3. Zhou discloses A method according to claim 2 wherein the first metadata is modified so as to limit access to the first data(Page 5 ¶ “According to a fourth aspect…”, access filtering).
Regarding claim 4. Zhou discloses A method according to claim 3 wherein modifying the first metadata comprises calculating a value derived from the first metadata but other than reversibly determinable therefrom(Page 4 ¶ “According to third aspect of invention…”, the search and match of permission configuration).
Regarding claim 5. Zhou discloses A method according to claim 3 wherein modifying the first metadata comprises indicating a range of values that contains the first metadata instead of the first metadata value, the range large enough to partially anonymise the first metadata and the first data(Page 6 ¶Step S204).
Regarding claim 6. Zhou discloses A method according to claim 3 wherein modifying the first metadata comprises calculating a statistical result resulting from amalgamating a plurality of first metadata values(Page 6 ¶Step S204, the meta-data grabbing & Page 5 ¶ “The present invention realizes unified…”).
Regarding claim 7. Zhou discloses A method according to claim 3 wherein modifying the first metadata comprises calculating a statistical result resulting from a plurality of first metadata values and first data values to result in a response to the second access request(Page 9 ¶Step S508).
Regarding claim 8. Zhou discloses A method according to claim 3 wherein some of the first metadata relates to events, the events relating to the first data and for use in filtering the first metadata based on events(Page 9 ¶Step S510-Step S516).
Regarding claim 9. Zhou discloses A method according to claim 3 wherein modifying the metadata comprises forming a metadata context file comprising a plurality of metadata for deriving therefrom one of aggregation data relating to the metadata and second order data relating to the metadata(Page 10 ¶Step S708 & ¶ According to the embodiment of the data permission management…”).
Regarding claim 10. Zhou discloses A method according to claim 9 wherein the metadata forms a multidimensional set of metadata analysable within a single dimension or within a plurality of dimensions and wherein the modified metadata comprises the metadata viewed within a single dimension(Page 9 ¶”The metadata grabbing unit 604…”).
Regarding claim 11. Zhou discloses A method according to claim 10 wherein the metadata for being stored is determined based on previously determined metadata and wherein data relating to different metadata elements is stored at different times(Page 9 ¶”The metadata grabbing unit 604…”.) .
Regarding claim 12. Zhou discloses A method according to claim 11 wherein the metadata for being stored relates to same fixed metadata elements, data relating to each metadata element stored with each data element access forming a plurality of metadata instances for a same data element, each instance relating to a different data element access and wherein modifying the metadata comprises reducing an amount of metadata to provide in response to the access request(Page 9 ¶”The metadata grabbing unit 604…”. .
Regarding claim 22. Zhou discloses A process according to claim 21 wherein the process verification block comprises cryptographic verification( Page 8 ¶Step S506, signature verification).
Regarding claim 23. Zhou discloses A process according to claim 22 wherein the process comprises a metadata modification block for execution on a second system beyond a security barrier of the second system and for which the metadata access request module has insufficient permission to access data beyond the security barrier of the second system(Page 4 ¶”In a embodiment, the service system…”, access filtering based on permission is insufficient & Page 9 ¶S508).
Regarding claim 24. Zhou discloses A process in accordance with claim 23 comprising: the second system, in response to the metadata access request, performing the following: downloading the metadata modification block, verifying the metadata modification block, and when the metadata modification block is verified, executing the metadata modification block on metadata within the secure boundary of the second system to provide a response to the metadata access request(Page 4 ¶”According to a third aspect of the present invention…”, access filtering based on permission is insufficient). .
Regarding claim 25. Zhou discloses A process in accordance with claim 24 comprising: when the metadata modification block is other than verified, other than executing the metadata modification block(page 10 ¶”The permission configuration unit…” & “According to the embodiment..”.
Regarding claim 26. Zhou discloses A process in accordance with claim 25 comprising: when the metadata modification block modifies the metadata in dependence upon contents of the metadata and contents of the first data(Page 8 ¶Step S508-Step S510).
Regarding claim 27. Zhou discloses A process according to claim 21 wherein the process is recursive and wherein the recursive process executes recursively across some security boundaries providing modified metadata there across(Page 9 ¶Step S516, changes in organization is updated).
Regarding claim 28. Zhou discloses A process according to claim 21 wherein the process is recursive and wherein the recursive process executes recursively across some security boundaries providing modified metadata thereacross and recursively across other boundaries providing unmodified metadata there across(Page 9 ¶Step S516, changes in organization is updated & Page 10 ¶S708-716).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Venkat Perungavoor whose telephone number is (571)272-7213. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached on 571-272-3880. 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.
/VENKAT PERUNGAVOOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492 Email: venkatanarayan.perungavoor@uspto.gov