DETAILED ACTION
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 .
1. Claims 1 – 62 are currently pending in this application.
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 1-62 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.
More specifically, claims 1, 23, and 45 contain the limitation “wherein the one or more characteristics of the one or more data pieces and the one or more characteristics of the at least one first device are unrelated to a storage capacity of the at least one first device.” It is unclear what is meant by being unrelated to a storage capacity of the device. Applicant’s specification describes examples independent/unrelated storage in 0105-0106 and states (in 0106) that “the predefined maximum number is independent to the sizes of the data pieces and may be considered a constant”. While it appears that the applicant intends the limitation to be directed towards unrelated meaning that data is stored based on a determined entry amount and not specifically based on storage capacity (which is the interpretation that will be utilized for examination purposes), appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, claims 2-22, 24-44, and 46-62 are also rejected, at least, based on their respective dependencies on claims 1, 23, and 45.
Claims 14, 36, and 58 contain the limitation “wherein the first type of for data storage and is accessible without through another nugget”. It is believed that this limitation is meant to state ‘without going through another nugget’ and will be treated as such for examination purposes. However, appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 10-14, 19, 21-25, 32-36, 41, 43-47, 54-58, 63, and 65-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2018/0123804 A1), hereinafter Smith, in view of Kanteti (Patent No. US 11,030,155 B2).
2. With respect to claims 1, 23, and 45, Smith taught a method comprising: selectively storing one or more data pieces in at least one first device based on a group of one or more characteristics of the one or more data pieces and/or one or more characteristics of the at least one first device, the at least one first device being a physical or virtual device (0089 & figure 4, item 400, where the authorization information is a from a group of characteristics under broadest reasonable interpretation).
However, Smith did not explicitly state wherein the one or more characteristics of the one or more data pieces and the one or more characteristics of the at least one first device are unrelated to a storage capacity of the at least one first device. On the other hand, Kanteti did teach wherein the one or more characteristics of the one or more data pieces and the one or more characteristics of the at least one first device are unrelated to a storage capacity of the at least one first device (11:56-64). Both of the systems of Smith and Kanteti are directed towards storing data keys and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Smith, to utilize a fixed number of entries per container, as taught by Kanteti, in order to more easily managed containers that are constantly adjusting key entries.
3. As for claims 2, 24, and 46, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 23, and 45 (respectively). In addition, Smith taught wherein said selectively storing the one or more data pieces in the at least one first device comprises: selecting one of the at least one first device; determining that the group of the one or more characteristics of the one or more data pieces and/or the one or more characteristics of the at least one first device satisfy a group of one or more conditions; and storing the one or more data pieces in the selected one of the at least one first device (0075, where the authorizations are conditions).
4. As for claims 3, 25, and 47, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 2, 24, and 46 (respectively). In addition, Kanteti taught wherein the group of one or more conditions comprise: a total number of the one or more data pieces being smaller than or equal to a predefined maximum data-piece number; the one or more data pieces belonging to a same owner or a predefined maximum number of multiple owners; the one or more data pieces being related to a same application program or a predefined maximum number of multiple application programs; the one or more data pieces being encrypted using a same encryption key or a predefined maximum number of multiple encryption keys; the one or more data pieces being encrypted using mutually different encryption keys; the one or more data pieces being a same type; the one or more data pieces being encrypted, and encrypted the one or more data pieces and one or more cryptographic keys stored in the in at least one first device being unrelated to the encrypted one or more data pieces; or a combination thereof (11:56-64, where this, at least, teaches the maximum data-piece limitation).
5. As for claims 10, 32, and 54, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 23, and 45 (respectively). In addition, Smith taught creating a first safe in the at least one first device (fig. 4, item 401); creating a first nugget in the first safe (fig. 4, item 400); and storing one of the one or more data pieces in the first nugget (fig. 4, item 400, the data stored in the ACP); wherein the first safe and the first nugget are data structures (0096, where the layers are containers and containers are data structures).
6. As for claims 11, 33, and 55, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 10, 32, and 54 (respectively). In addition, Smith taught wherein the first nugget comprises metadata (0083 & 0107).
7. As for claims 12, 34, and 56, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 10, 32, and 54 (respectively). In addition, Smith taught wherein said creating the first safe in the at least one first device comprises: creating a vault in the at least one first device; and creating the first safe in the vault; wherein the vault is a data structure (fig. 4, item 404).
8. As for claims 13, 35, and 57, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 12, 34, and 56 (respectively). In addition, Smith taught wherein each of the at least one first device only comprises one vault (fig. 4, item 404. See also: 0089, where nested layers are not required meaning that there could be just one vault under broadest reasonable interpretation).
9. As for claims 14, 36, and 58, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 10, 32, and 54 (respectively). In addition, Smith taught wherein the first nugget is of a first type; and wherein the first type of for data storage and is accessible without through another nugget (fig. 4, item 400, where the keys are there to be retrieved).
10. As for claims 19, 41, and 63, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 10, 32, and 54 (respectively). In addition, Smith taught finding the first nugget by searching the at least one first device using an ID of the first nugget; or finding the first nugget by (i) searching the at least one first device using an ID of a query initiator to obtain a nugget list, and (ii) searching the nugget list using the ID of the first nugget (0089, where it is given that each layer/storage unit would have an id/address so that they may be located and their information retrieved. See also: 0096).
11. As for claims 21, 43, and 65, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 23, and 45 (respectively). In addition, Smith taught wherein said managing the at least one first device comprises: receiving a creation request from the at least one first device; generating a device-ID-creation token; sending the device-ID-creation token to the at least one first device; receiving a device ID of the at least one first device and a device-ID-registration token from the at least one first device; verifying the device-ID-registration token; registering the device ID; generating a device-ID-update token; and sending the device-ID-update token to the at least one first device (0242).
12. As for claims 22, 44, and 66, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 23, and 45 (respectively). In addition, Smith taught converting a nugget ID in a received query to a hash of the nugget ID; searching the hash of the nugget ID to obtain a hash of a vault ID; searching the hash of the vault ID to obtain a list of one or more hashes of device IDs; and searching each hash of the one or more hashes of device IDs to obtain an IP address and port of a device corresponding to the hash (0126, the integrity hashes).
Claim(s) 4-9, 26-31, and 48-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, in view of Kanteti, and in further view of KEMPF et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0081404 A1), hereinafter Kempf.
13. As for claims 4, 26, and 48, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 23, and 45 (respectively). However, Smith did not explicitly state managing one or more users and the at least one first device using a first hierarchical structure of the one or more users, a second hierarchical structure of the at least one first device, and a mapping between the first and second hierarchical structures. On the other hand, Kempf did teach managing one or more users and the at least one first device using a first hierarchical structure of the one or more users, a second hierarchical structure of the at least one first device, and a mapping between the first and second hierarchical structures (0046 & figure 1, item 108, where the data center is the host in accordance with 0044). Both of the systems of Smith and Kempf are directed towards managing structures in a cloud network and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Smith, to utilize assigning nodes a hierarchical structure, as taught by Smith, in order to effectuate proper organizational/network functioning.
14. As for claims 5, 27, and 49, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 4, 26, and 48 (respectively). In addition, Kempf taught wherein the first hierarchical structure comprises: a top-level node of service host, one or more nodes of partners associated with the node of service host, one or more nodes of providers associated with each of the one or more nodes of partners, and one or more nodes of subscribers associated with each of the one or more nodes of providers; and wherein the one or more users comprise the service host, the one or more partners, the one or more providers, and the one or more node of subscribers (0049, where this, at least, teaches the subscriber limitation).
15. As for claims 6, 28, and 50, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 5, 27, and 49 (respectively). In addition, Kempf taught wherein said managing the one or more users and the at least one first device comprises: managing a first user of the one or more users, the first user being classified as one of the one or more partners, one of the one or more partners, or one of the one or more subscribers (0049); and wherein said managing the first user comprises: receiving a join request from a computing device, generating a registration token, sending the registration token to the computing device, receiving an identifier of the first user and a join token from the computing device, verifying the join token, registering the ID of the first user, generating an ID-update token, and sending the ID-update token to the computing device (0009, where the tokenized data can be seen in 0110, and the ID, update, and joining are giving as part of the registration process).
16. As for claims 7, 29, and 51, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 6, 28, and 50 (respectively). In addition, Kempf taught wherein said managing the one or more users and the at least one first device further comprises: updating information of the first user using the ID-update token (0009, where the tokenized data can be seen in 0110, and the ID, update, and joining are giving as part of the registration process).
17. As for claims 8, 30, and 52, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 5, 27, and 49 (respectively). In addition, Smith taught wherein the second hierarchical structure comprises: a top-level node of realm; one or more nodes of perimeters associated with the node of realm; one or more nodes of bunkers associated with each of the one or more nodes of perimeters; and a node of the at least one first device associated with one of the one or more nodes of bunkers (figure 4, where the different layers are the different realms, bunkers, etc. Accordingly, the hierarchical structure was previously shown by Kempf: 0046).
18. As for claims 9, 31, and 53, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 8, 30, and 52 (respectively). In addition, Kempf taught wherein the node of realm is mapped the node of service host, the one or more nodes of perimeters are mapped to the one or more nodes of partners, the one or more nodes of bunkers are mapped to the one or more nodes of providers, and the node of the at least one first device is mapped to one of the one or more nodes of subscribers (0046).
Claim(s) 15-17, 37-39, and 59-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, in view of Kanteti, and in further view of Zhou et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2018/0067691 A1), hereinafter Zhou.
19. As for claims 15, 37, and 59, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 10, 32, and 54 (respectively). However, Smith did not explicitly state wherein the first nugget is of a second type; and wherein the second type is for data storage and is accessible through a nugget of a third type. On the other hand, Zhou did teach wherein the first nugget is of a second type; and wherein the second type is for data storage and is accessible through a nugget of a third type (0023). Both of the systems of Smith and Zhou are directed towards managing storage and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Smith, to utilize storing pointers for data management, as taught by Zhou, as this was a standard way of managing and linking data that was contemporary to the time of the invention.
20. As for claims 16, 38, and 60, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 15, 37, and 59 (respectively). In addition, Zhou taught wherein the third type is for storing a link pointing to a second-type nugget (0023).
21. As for claims 17, 39, and 61, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 15, 37, and 59 (respectively). In addition, Zhou taught storing a second-type nugget or storing a third-type nugget; wherein said storing the second-type nugget comprises: identifying a second safe that does not have any third-type nugget, and storing the second-type nugget in the second safe; and wherein said storing the second-type nugget comprises: identifying a third safe that does not have any second-type nugget, and storing the third-type nugget in the third safe (0023, where the process is repeated for the nth nugget and the third nugget wouldn’t be placed in the used storage, which teaches identifying a third safe does not hand any second-type nugget, under broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claim(s) 18, 40, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, in view of Kanteti, in view of Zhou, and in further view of Official Notice.
22. As for claims 18, 40, and 62, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 15, 37, and 59 (respectively). However, Smith did not explicitly state manipulating a second-type nugget or a third-type nugget in accordance with the following rules: storing the second-type nugget and the third-type nugget in different safes; disallowing storage of a link pointing to a first-type nugget in the third-type nugget; disallowing storage of a link pointing to a second-type nugget in the third-type nugget if the second-type nugget and the third-type nugget are in a same safe; disallowing updating of a link stored in the third-type nugget; allowing updating of data stored in the second-type nugget via a link stored in the third-type nugget that points to the second-type nugget; or a combination thereof. However, the examiner gives official notice that determining where data can be stored based on other storage locations is well known in data storage and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Smith to utilize specific data storage conditions, in order to maintain a structed database.
Claim(s) 20, 42, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, in view of Kanteti, and in further view of Morris (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2010/0146132 A1).
23. As for claims 20, 42, and 64, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 23, and 45 (respectively). However, Smith did not explicitly state calling a domain name system query function with a name of a root cluster to obtain a list of addresses of one or more first discovery servers; wherein the root cluster comprises a plurality of discovery servers including the one or more first discovery servers; and wherein the DNS query function receives an input parameter and comprises: determining a node type of the input parameter, if the node type of the input parameter is a first node type, obtaining one or more DNS pointer records for the input parameter, and for each PTR record of the one or more PTR records, calling the DNS query function with a name of a node in the PTR record as the input parameter, if the node type of the input parameter is a second node type, obtaining one or more DNS service records for the input parameter, and including addresses in the one or more SRV records into the list of addresses of the one or more first discovery servers.
On the other hand, Morris did teach calling a domain name system query function with a name of a root cluster to obtain a list of addresses of one or more first discovery servers; wherein the root cluster comprises a plurality of discovery servers including the one or more first discovery servers; and wherein the DNS query function receives an input parameter and comprises: determining a node type of the input parameter, if the node type of the input parameter is a first node type, obtaining one or more DNS pointer records for the input parameter, and for each PTR record of the one or more PTR records, calling the DNS query function with a name of a node in the PTR record as the input parameter, if the node type of the input parameter is a second node type, obtaining one or more DNS service records for the input parameter, and including addresses in the one or more SRV records into the list of addresses of the one or more first discovery servers (0056, where the limitations appear to claim obtaining the appropriate data using the DNS service, which is currently shown).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Reed et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2024/0259287 A1), 0003-0004.
(b) Huo et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0032363 A1), 0058, 0061.
(c) Vimberg (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0085996 A1), 0021, 0026.
(d) Cox, Jr. et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0133344 A1), 0040, 0063.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443