DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is response to communication: response to RCE filed on 02/09/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
No new IDS has been filed for this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the art rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. See amended rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 4-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozenberg et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0210470 (Rozenberg), in view of Barkley et al. US Patent No. 6,202,066 (Barkley).
As per claim 1, Rozenberg teaches a system for particularized data security in a data storage environment, the system comprising: at least one non-transitory storage medium configured to store program code and at least one hardware processor configured to execute the program code to perform operations comprising (abstract and throughout with database security system): storing a plurality of records in one or more data sources, wherein each record of the plurality of records includes one or more data fields (paragraph 20, 23, and throughout with database and datatable); identifying a record-level data security rule, wherein the record-level data security rule indicates user permission to access a record of the plurality of records based on a data field of the record (paragraph 24 with different categories; paragraph 25 with category associated with user role permission; see also paragraph 28 with column and each “column” is protected with different permissions); applying the record-level data security rule to the one or more data sources (paragraph 35, 39, and throughout with generating and mapping data record protection scheme to protect the record); receiving a request by a suer to access a particular record of the plurality of records (paragraph 44 with user request to access record); and based on the request and a data field of the particular record, in accordance with the record-level data security rule, determining whether the user is permitted to access the particular record (paragraphs 45-48 with allowing user to access the record based on the user’s role and categorization/column rules), and extracting a first set of data items from the particular record based on a mapping of the user type of the user to the first set of data items of the particular record (paragraphs 45-48 with allowing user to access particular data based on user role)
Rodriguez does not explicitly teach identifying a visibility configuration for the record based on a user type of the user, wherein the visibility configuration indicates that the user is permitted to view, access, or interact with the particular record. However, this would have been obvious. For example, see Barkley (col. 6 lines 19-25 with object access control including read, write, edit, create, delete, etc; see also Figure 4 and col. 13 lines 28-50). Further, Barkley teaches exracting, using the visibility configuration, a first set of data items from the particular record based on a mapping of the user type of the user to the first set of data items of the particular record (see col. 13 lines 19-26 wherein a role has access to particular files/fields within a directory/record; see also col. 13 lines 1-10 with another example wherein particular roles are assigned visibility configurations such as particular files to read within a directory).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rodriguez with Barkley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by applying access control rules to objects (col. 4 lines 18-25).
As per claim 2, Rozenberg teaches wherein the record-level data security rule has a first level of abstraction, wherein the operations further comprise translating the record-level data security rule into one or more data security rules having a second level of abstraction lower than the first level, and wherein determining whether the user is permitted to access the particular record is based on the one or more data security rules (see paragraph 46 with data column identifiers which are then translated to column protection schemes; see paragraph 47 and 48 with different sets of data record categories).
As per claim 4, the Rozenberg combination teaches causing a display of a user interface configured to allow user input of the record-level data security rule (see throughout Barkley, such as Figures 2-5).
As per claim 5, Rozenberg teaches wherein the record-level data security rule indicates that the user has permission to access the particular record if the user is identified in the data field of the particular record (see paragraph 25, wherein a role is an account holder; see also paragraph 25 with data record category assocaited with high credential and only users associated with or in possession of high security credential my access record; the “role” may be the user).
As per claim 6, Rozenberg teaches wherein the plurality of records are of a first type, and wherein the operations further comprise associating the plurality of records with one or more records of a second type based on a common data field (paragraph 26 with data records associated with multiple categories; a user associated with multiple roles will be able to access multiple records).
As per claim 7, Rozenberg teaches wherein the record-level data security rule indicates that the user has permission to access the particular record if the user is permitted to access a second record, of the second type, assocatied with the particular record based on the common data field (paragraph 26 with data records associated with multiple categories; a user associated with multiple roles will be able to access multiple records).
As per claim 8, Rozenberg teaches wherein the operations further comprise: configuring a record type; generating, for the record type and based on input data, the plurality of records; and configuring an object-level data security rule for the record type, wherein the object level data security rule indicates that a user group has permission to access the plurality of records (paragraph 23 with receiving data/input and storing data into tables; see paragarphs 24-25 with organizing/categorizing data into different rows; see paragraph 25 with roles).
As per claim 9, Rozenberg teaches activating the record-level data security rule to overlay or override the object-level data security rule for the plurality of records (paragraph 26 wherein data records can then be assocaited with multiple categories and columns and restricted based on user roles)
As per claim 10, Rozenberg teaches after activating the record-level data security rule, configuring a second record-level data security rule that grants the user group permission to access one or more of the plurality of records (see paragraph 25 with after categorizing data and generating roles, data access may be restricted based on roles; see further paragraph 29 with column protection scheme and protection scheme key).
As per claim 11, Rozenberg teaches wherein the record-level data security rule indicates security conditions, and wherein the security conditions are based on one or more data fields in the plurality of records for comparison with specified values based on specified operators (see paragraph 25 wherein rules may be established such that only certain roles can access certain data; see also paragraph 27 with different protection schemes)
As per claim 12, Rozenberg teaches denying access to the particular record of the plurality of records if the security conditions are not satisfied for the particular record (paragraph 26, 27, 49, and throughout wherein users that are not in the correct roles can not see/access documents).
As per claim 13, Rozenberg teaches identifying, based on one or more record-level security rules, a first set of records of the plurality of records, wherein a first user is permitted to access the first set of records; and identifying, based on one or more record-level data rules, a second set of records of the plurality of records, wherein a second user is permitted to access the second set of records, and wherein the second set is different from the first set (paragraphs 26, 27, 49 and throughout wherein different roles can access different records).
Claim 15 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 4 above.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Rozenberg combination as applied above, and further in view of Park et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0319090 (Park).
As per claim 3, the Rozenberg combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first level of abstraction includes a natural language, and the second level of abstraction includes a computer language. However, translating from a natural language to a computer language is well known in the art. For example, see Park (paragraph 76 wherein text/natural language is processed and information such as rules are extracted).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rozenberg with Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by consolidating knowledge that can be used from multiple sources (paragraph 9).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Rozenberg combination as applied above, and further in view of Reynolds WO 2022/192792A1 (Reynolds)
As per claim 14, Rozenberg teaches wherein a first user is permitted to access first data and wherein a second user may access second data, wherein the second data is different from the first data (paragraphs 26, 27, 49 and throughout wherein different roles can access different records). However, the combination does not explicitly teach that the data are reports of aggregated information/reports. However, generating, based on records, reports of aggregated information, is well known in the art. For example, see Reynolds (paragraph 214 with generating a summarily file which comprises a collection of data accessible on a user interface).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill I the art to combine the teachings of the Rozenberg combination with Reynolds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to introduce a streamlined means of aggregating and analyzing data and then propagating the analyzed data into a file format that is easy to understand and manipulate (paragraph 5 of Reynolds).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KAI YIN GEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6431. The examiner can normally be reached on Monda-Friday 8:30-5:00 PST Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-3739. 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).
/JASON K GEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights