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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, the phrase “even if the open requested file is a file stored in a secure storage area” is unclear if the term “even if” requires the following portions of the limitations after the term or does not require the following portions of the limitation that come after the term.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Don et al., (Koran Patent Application No. KR2022/0097037, Translated), hereinafter “Don”, and further in view of Stacey et al., (US Publication No. 2006/0212481), hereinafter “Stacey”.
Regarding claims 1, 3, Don discloses
A local data protection system comprising a data protection agent program installed on a local computing device that performs predetermined data protection functions in accordance with a preset security policy [Don, paragraphs 4-5, 27-30];
wherein, when there is a request to open a file stored on the local computing device having an extension designated as secure according to the security policy [Don, paragraphs 4-5, 27-30],
the data protection agent program provides a real file that can be read and written if the file requested to be opened is a file stored in a secure storage area of the local computing device [Don, paragraphs 4-5, 27-30], and
Don does not specifically disclose, however Stacey teaches
a real file with a read-only file attribute that can only be read if the file requested to be opened is a file stored in a non-secure storage area of the local computing device, and
wherein a fake file of read-only file attribute is generated and provided that can only be read, even if the open requested file is a file stored in a secure storage area of the local computing device when the read request program is a program not stored with the security program [Stacey, Abstract, paragraphs 42-44].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Stacey’s pointers to a real file, providing the accessor with a fake file thereby allowing the user to access the file and if the user does not have the rights to the file for writing, not allowing an update. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine Stacey with Don as both arts relate to a similar concept.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Don-Stacey, and further in view of Hariharan et al., (US Publication No 2016/0147722), hereinafter “Hariharan”.
Regarding claim 2, Don-Stacey further discloses
a local data protection system comprising a data protection agent program installed on the local computing device performing predetermined data protection functions in accordance with a preset security policy [Don, paragraphs 4-6, 27-30];
when there is an open request for a file stored on the local computing device having an extension designated as secure in accordance with the security policy, when the open requested program is designated as a secure program under the security policy [Don, paragraphs 4-5, 27-30], and
provides a real file with a read-only file attribute that is readable only if the open requested file is a file stored in a non-secure storage area of the local computing device, and when the open requested program is a program not designated as a secure program, generates and provides in real time a fake file of read-only file attribute that can only be read, even if the open requested file is a file stored in a secure storage area of the local computing device [Stacey, Abstract, paragraphs 42-44].
Stacey-Don does not specifically disclose, however Hariharan teaches
wherein the data protection agent program prohibits creation, modification, deletion of executable files of a secure program stored and executed on the local computing device, and prohibits copying of files from a secure storage area to a non- secure storage area, prohibits copying to the clipboard, prohibits printing output, and prohibits transferring files over a network, wherein the data protection agent program provides a real file with a read-only file attribute that is readable only if the open requested file is a file stored in a non-security storage area of the local computing device [Hariharan, paragraph 43].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Don-Stacey’s pointers to a real file, and combining with Hariharan allowing or not allowing users to copy or save a file that they only have read only rights to. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine Don-Stacey with Hariharan as all arts relate to a similar concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J GOODCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-1589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Jeff Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. 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.
/William J. Goodchild/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights