DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2026-01-27 has been entered and fully considered.
In light of applicant’s amendment, filed 2026-01-27, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 2026-01-27, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 11-12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As a preliminary note, the Examiner respectfully submits that in determining whether the claims are integrated into a practical application, the analysis is of the elements of the claim itself and not embodiments that may fall within the scope of the claims. That is, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims; See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims pass Step 2A of the analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, applicant argues that the claims address a technical problem for the blockchain where data is leaked; however, the Examiner notes that none of the examined claims recite or even hint that they are operating within or using blockchain technology of any sort. Further, none of the claims recite any form of access control or data leakage protection mechanism. At best, the claims recite using a “sandbox”, but sandboxes do not necessarily confer any data protection to their contents. Moreso, sandboxes are usually deployed to protect any data outside of the sandbox (e.g. protect a system from potential malware that may operating be within the confines of the sandbox) – and this functionality is present only when the sandbox has specific design elements that achieve this function. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a sandbox (such as claimed) is just allocated memory that offers no protection whatsoever. In a similar vein, applicant argues that when “creating a sandbox, the first network device only collects the metadata of the data provider”, but again, these features (collecting metadata but not private data) are not recited in the claims. At best, the claims merely require allocation and storage of data in a generically designed “sandbox” that does not necessarily confer any security benefit whatsoever and that does not have any relevance to blockchain technology. Thus, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claims do not necessarily create “a secure trusted environment for data storage and processing” nor does it “avoid the leakage of private information”.
Applicant then argues that “Step 2B, the additional claim elements considered separately and in combination provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, which are used to solve the aforementioned technical problems solved by claim 1 of the present application”; however, again, the Examiner notes that applicant generally relies on description from the specification that are not present from the claim.
Based on the above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection is proper.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13, filed 2026-01-27, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that “the present application and D1 [Wu] involve different network architectures” after an ‘analysis’ of how the instant application and Wu allegedly “solve different technical problems and adopt different technical means” without pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant then argues that Wu fails to disclose “creating a sandbox for the data provider” because Wu “does not disclose that the database encryption proxy system 108 is created for the cloud database service 110” (p. 11); however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully submits that there are no claim limitations whatsoever on when the sandbox is created, the structure of the sandbox, or how it is created. In that regard, database encryption proxy system 108 of Wu didn’t simply conjure into existence – it was created to proxy for the service 110. Further, even if applicant is referring to a sandbox specific to a request (which is not required by the claims), the broadest reasonable interpretation of creating a sandbox is just the mere storage of data in an allocated position, which is inherent in any database or data transfer system such as Wu.
Applicant then argues that Wu fails to disclose “synchronizing information on the sandbox to a second network side device” because Wu “does not disclose synchronizing information on the database encryption proxy system 108 (metadata of the cloud database service 110) to the database client 104” (p. 11); however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully submits that there are no claim limitations whatsoever on the process, content (e.g. no requirement of it as metadata), or timing of the synchronizing. The Examiner notes that because the “the database encryption proxy system 108” is able to retrieve a requested record from “cloud database service 110” and return it to the user, for at least some period of time, both the “cloud database service 110” and “the database encryption proxy system 108” comprised the same data returned to the user, i.e. it was synchronized.
Applicant then argues that Wu fails to disclose “that the sandbox is bound to the original database” because Wu “does not disclose that the database encryption proxy system 108 is bound to the cloud database service 110” (p. 11); however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully submits that there are no claim limitations whatsoever on nature or structure of the claimed “bound” between the elements. The term is so vague and nebulous as to have little, if any, patentable weight. In this instance, the broadest reasonable interpretation of being “bound” includes concepts such as being connected to each other. In this instance, “the database encryption proxy system 108” and “cloud database service 110” are not only connected via a network, but the “the database encryption proxy system 108” is particularly designed to be used for accessing “cloud database service 110”, which is a much more stringent binding (i.e. a species of; See MPEP § 2131.02(I)) than the nebulously claimed feature.
Applicant then argues that Wu fails to disclose “receiving a sandbox access request initiated by a data application party and forwarded by the second network side device” because Wu “is considered to disclose receiving a sandbox access request initiated by the data provider and forwarded by the database client” (p. 11) and that Wu “does not disclose what specific parameters are carried out in this request”; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner first notes that the claims do not clearly require a particular direction in dataflow or clearly delineate which elements are performing which steps. Regardless, the Examiner respectfully submits communication in Wu are bi-directional, i.e. the request goes from client to proxy to cloud, with interaction between proxy and cloud, and final response from cloud to proxy to client. The Examiner effectively has a cornucopia of elements from which to map as a “request” (as even subsequent communications between proxy and cloud were ultimately “initiated” by the client). Further, even if arguendo, the Examiner accepted that Wu “does not disclose what specific parameters are carried out in this request”, the Examiner notes that no such feature of “specific parameters” is required by the claims.
Finally, applicant argues that “it is evident that D1 [Wu] does not disclose the specific parameters within the request data, nor does it disclose what specific operations are performed based on those parameters, that is, it discloses neither the metadata of request data, nor the query operation performed on the basis of the metadata of the request data. As a result, distinguishing feature 3 is not disclosed”; however, the Examiner respectfully submits that none of these features are recited in the claim and thus are not required for anticipation by Wu.
Based on the above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection is proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. The claims recite sharing requested data in a sandbox, a form of observation, evaluation, and judgment, which is a concept performed in the human mind and thus grouped as Mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the courts.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra:
The following are Principles of Law:
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts.
The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of sharing requested data in a sandbox, a form of observation, evaluation, and judgment, which is a concept performed in the human mind and thus grouped as Mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application?
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as:
(1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals)
(3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b)
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c)
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Examiner notes that clam features of: sharing requested data in a sandbox do not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Instead of a practical application, the claim features of sharing requested data in a sandbox merely use a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept?
The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than generic computer implementation or can be performed entirely by a human. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure (e.g. a first network side device) that serves to perform generic computer functions (e.g. create a sandbox, synchronize data, receive access requests, collect data, generate response data, ...) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The claimed sandbox, information, original database, metadata, access request, request data, original data, ... are all numbers, data structures, or datum. Each of these elements are individually dispositive of patent eligibility because of the following legal holdings:
“Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court has also explained that “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e., an abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, the claims are merely directed towards sharing requested data in a sandbox, which is similar to ideas that the courts have found to be abstract, as noted supra, and the claims are without a “practical application” or anything “significantly more”.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process does no more than require a generic computer to perform a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity at a high level of generality. For example, “receiving a sandbox access request” and “notifying, by means of the second network side device, the data application party” are merely receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, “generating response data” is merely a form of performing repetitive calculations, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Further, “synchronizing information”, “collecting, in the original database bound to the sandbox, original data”, and “generating response data” are merely forms of electronic recordkeeping, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log). Further, “creating a sandbox” for data storage and “collecting, in the original database bound to the sandbox, original data” are merely forms of storing and retrieving information in memory, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Further note that the abstract idea of sharing requested data in a sandbox to which the claimed invention is directed has a prior art basis outside of a computing environment, e.g. secure couriers delivering requested data via a concealed media.
The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the steps of using generic computer components. The claims do not purport, for example, to improve the functioning of the computer system itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. This is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
The dependent claims likewise incorporate the deficiencies of a claim upon which they ultimately depend and are also directed to non-patent-eligible subject matter.
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 1-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20180248848-A1, hereinafter “Wu”).
With respect to independent claim 1, Wu discloses a data sharing method, applied to a first network side device {para. 0026: reads on either: 1) “database encryption proxy system 108”, optionally combined with “cloud database service 110”, and/or 2) “database client 104” (below mapping for #1, though alternative mapping possible for #2)}, comprising:
creating a sandbox for a data provider {para. 0026: sandbox: “database encryption proxy system 108”; data provider: “cloud database service 110”}, and synchronizing information on the sandbox to a second network side device {paras. 0026 and 0047: second network side device: “database client 104”; wherein “database client 104 can communicate with a database encryption proxy system 108 to create, manage, access, and otherwise interact with encrypted database data hosted by a cloud database service 110”, e.g., “the database encryption proxy system 108 … sends the decrypted database record to the database client 104”}, wherein the sandbox is bound to an original database {para. 0026: “database encryption proxy system 108” data is linked to “cloud database 118”}, and the information comprises metadata of the original database {para. 0020: “metadata (e.g., table name, column name(s), and the like) and data values for specified database columns” and/or the plaintext “database record”}.
receiving a sandbox access request initiated by a data application party and forwarded by the second network side device, wherein the sandbox access request carries metadata of request data {para. 0045: “the database client 104 sends, to the database encryption proxy system 108, a database query that identifies the specific database record requested at operation 402”}.
collecting, in the original database bound to the sandbox, original data queried on the basis of the metadata of the request data {para. 0046: “the database encryption proxy system 108 queries the cloud database service 110 for the encrypted database record”}.
generating response data to the sandbox access request according to the collected original data {paras. 0046-0047: “the database encryption proxy system 108 receives, from the cloud database service 110, the encrypted database record” and “where the database encryption proxy system 108 decrypts the encrypted database record”}, and notifying, by means of the second network side device, the data application party to acquire the response data from the sandbox {paras. 0047 and 0072-0074: “sends the decrypted database record to the database client 104”; the “data communications” standards, e.g. “WI-FI” uses signaling to inform the recipient to be ready to receive the transmission}.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Wu discloses wherein creating the sandbox for the data provider comprises:
determining, according to a sandbox creation request of the data provider, a service type provided by the sandbox, wherein the service type comprises shared exchange and trusted computing {para. 0039: “an ‘encrypted’ identifier used by the database user 114 to mark at least a portion of the data (or the entirety of the data) to be encrypted by the database encryption proxy system 108” – the terms “shared exchange” and “trusted computing” do not have a particular meaning in the art, and can encompass, e.g., the selection of either non-encrypted or encrypted records, respectively}.
creating the sandbox according to the service type {para. 0039: “The ‘ENCRYPTED’ word alternatively can be a keyword as described above that merely modifies the traditional SQL statement to create a new database table”}.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Wu discloses wherein generating the response data to the sandbox access request comprises: desensitizing the original data, encrypting desensitized data, and taking encrypted data as the response data to the sandbox access request in the case that the service type provided by the sandbox is shared exchange {the claim is a contingent claim limitation as per the limitation “in the case that the service type provided by the sandbox is shared exchange”; thus the steps are not required to be performed; See MPEP § 2111.04(II)}.
With respect to claims 11-12, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier in this section with respect to claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 11-12; therefore, claims 11-12 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 1.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20180248848-A1, hereinafter “Wu”) in view of Julaih et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20210064771-A1, hereinafter “Julaih”).
With respect to dependent claim 14, although Wu discloses wherein after receiving the sandbox access request initiated by the data application party and forwarded by the second network side device, and before collecting, in the original database bound to the sandbox, the original data queried on the basis of the metadata of the request data, Wu does not explicitly disclose notifying for approval and collecting based on the approval; however, Julaih discloses the data sharing method further comprises:
notifying, according to the sandbox access request initiated by the data application party, the data provider to approve the sandbox access request {para. 0018: “in response to receiving the request, looking up an owner of the corresponding application in a non-transitory electronic APO database; requesting an approval from the corresponding application owner”}.
collecting, in the original database bound to the sandbox, the original data queried on the basis of the metadata of the request data in the case that the sandbox access request is approved to be passed {para. 0018: “receiving the approval from the corresponding application owner to modify or add the action or permission; and in response to receiving the approval, updating a non-transitory electronic role database”; although this is regarding updating the database, the Examiner notes that before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this to data reads as well as writes, as it’s one of a handful of common database operations}.
Wu and Julaih are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem-solving area of protecting database entries. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wu and Julaih before him or her, to modify/develop the database encryption proxy system of Wu’s system to utilize requesting approval of a data owner before allowing access to the data. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would have been because it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., enables protection of the owner’s data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the database encryption proxy system in Wu’s system with requesting approval of a data owner before allowing access to the data to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s). The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Bechtel whose telephone number is 571-270-5436. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 ET.
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, William (“Bill”) Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/Kevin Bechtel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491