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 responsive to amendment filed 4/13/2026. The claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception for prior art Shetty et al. (US Pub No 2024/0143779) have been accepted. The new ground of rejection below does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoyos et al. (US Pub No 2016/0065571 – provided with previous Office Action mailed 1/14/26).
With respect to claim 1, Hoyos teaches a system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory (e.g., @ fig. 2) that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:
identify a recipient device for a secure file transfer (e.g., selecting intended recipient ¶ 0061 & 0111);
verify an enrollment status of the recipient device with an enterprise (e.g., verify user and user device ¶ 0027 & 0114-0115);
verify a compliance level of the recipient device (e.g., only those users ¶ 0061 and devices ¶ 0077 with appropriate access level will receive the secure file transfer ¶ 0061, 0077 & 0100-0101); and
based at least in part on a successful verification of the enrollment status and the compliance level, transfer one or more secure files to the recipient device (e.g., sharing the secure file to the intended user only if verification is successful ¶ 0102-0103).
Hoyos further teaches claim:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed, further cause the computing device to at least establish a secure connection between the computing device and the recipient device (e.g., establish a secure connection using certificates ¶ 0057, 0062 & 0064).
Hoyos further teaches claim:
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions which, when executed, cause the computing device to verify a compliance level of the recipient device, further cause the computing device to at least: obtain a security classification of the recipient device; and compare the security classification of the recipient device to a security classification of the one or more secure files (e.g., verify certificate ¶ 0029 & 0062 and verify membership level ¶ 0101-0105).
Hoyos further teaches claim:
6. The system of claim 5, wherein verification of the compliance level is successful when the security classification of the recipient device matches the security classification of the one or more secure files (e.g., transfer the secure file after a successful verification ¶ 0097-0103).
The limitations of claim 8 are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
The limitations of claim 9 are substantially similar to claim 2 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
The limitations of claim 12 are substantially similar to claim 5 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
The limitations of claim 13 are substantially similar to claim 6 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
The limitations of claim 15 are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
The limitations of claim 16 are substantially similar to claim 2 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
The limitations of claim 19 are substantially similar to claims 5-6 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
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.
Claims 3-4, 7, 10-11, 14, 17-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyos et al. (US Pub No 2016/0065571) in view of Jun Li (US Pub No 2009/0259847).
With respect to claim 3, Hoyos discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above with respect to verifying device enrollment status (¶ 0097-0103), but does not explicitly discloses using certificate and verify a signature. However, analogous art from the same field of endeavor, Li teaches obtain a certificate from the recipient device (e.g., “ In step 710, receiver 704 sends provider 702 a copy of the signed ticket authorizing the receiver to obtain data object O.” ¶ 0046); and verify a signature of the certificate based upon a root certificate corresponding to the certificate obtained from the recipient device (e.g., “The provider verifies the ticket in step 712 using the public key of the server. Assuming the ticket is verified, provider 702 sends receiver 704 a signed root hash value H(0,1) for the data object O.“ ¶ 0036 & 0046 & Figs. 7A-B). Therefore, based on Hoyos in view of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Li to the system of Hoyos in order to “secure against attempts by individual peers to circumvent authenticity, confidentiality, data integrity, and proof-of-service” (¶ 0050-0051) . Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Li further teaches claim:
4. The system of claim 3, wherein verification of the enrollment status is successful when the root certificate corresponding to the certificate matches the root certificate of the enterprise (e.g., verifying root hash digitally signed by a server of an enterprise ¶ 0013 & 0046). The motivation to combine Li to Hoyos is the same as claim 3 above.
The limitations of claims 10 & 17 are substantially similar to claim 3 above, and therefore these claims are likewise rejected.
The limitations of claims 11 & 18 are substantially similar to claim 4 above, respectively, and therefore the claims are likewise rejected.
Li further teaches claim:
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions which, when executed, cause the computing device to transfer one or more secure files to the recipient device, further cause the computing device to at least: sign the one or more secure files using a private key of the computing device; encrypt the one or more secure files using a public key of the recipient device; and send the one or more secure files to the recipient device (e.g., prior to sending the secure files to the recipient, signing the file using the receiver’s private key ¶ 0030-0031 & 0051, encrypt using the receiver’s public key so that only the receiver can decrypt it ¶ 0043-0044 & 0046). The motivation to combine Li to Hoyos is the same as claim 3 above.
The limitations of claims 14 & 20 are substantially similar to claim 7 above, and therefore these claims are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU LE whose telephone number is (571)270-7217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, LINGLAN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-5440. 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.
/CHAU LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights