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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18, 26, and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US Pat. 11714842. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below.
Claims 1, 3-11, 14, 16-18, and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 of U.S. Patent No. US Pat. 12032615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below.
Instant Application 18738830
US Pat. 11714842
US Pat. 12032615
Claim 1. In a data governance system, a method for performing sensitive content analysis on a plurality of file system objects of a geographically remote file storage system associated with a particular client, said method comprising:
establishing a wide-area network connection with said remote file storage system;
receiving, via said wide-area network connection, first metadata and second metadata, said first metadata corresponding to at least a first object of said plurality of file system objects of said remote file storage system, and said second metadata corresponding to at least a second object of said plurality of file system objects of said remote file storage system;
analyzing said first metadata to generate a first estimate value based at least in part on said first metadata, said first estimate value being indicative of a likelihood that said first object includes sensitive content;
analyzing said second metadata to generate a second estimate value based at least in part on said second metadata, said second estimate value being indicative of a likelihood that said second object includes sensitive content;
prioritizing said first object and said second object, based at least in part on said first estimate value and said second estimate value;
retrieving said first object prior to retrieving said second object based at least in part on results of said prioritizing; and
analyzing first content of said first object to determine whether said first object includes sensitive content prior to analyzing second content of said second object to determine whether said second object includes sensitive content.
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 13
Claim 14
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 26
Claim 28
Claim 1. In a data governance system, a method for performing sensitive content analysis on a plurality of file system objects of a geographically remote file storage system associated with a particular client, said method comprising:
establishing a wide-area network connection with said remote file storage system;
receiving, via said wide-area network connection, first metadata and second metadata, said first metadata corresponding to at least a first object of said plurality of file system objects of said remote file storage system, and said second metadata corresponding to at least a second object of said plurality of file system objects of said remote file storage system;
analyzing said first metadata to generate a first estimate value based at least in part on said first metadata, said first estimate value being indicative of a likelihood that said first object includes sensitive content;
analyzing said second metadata to generate a second estimate value based at least in part on said second metadata, said second estimate value being indicative of a likelihood that said second object includes sensitive content;
prioritizing said first object and said second object, based at least in part on said first estimate value and said second estimate value;
retrieving said first object prior to retrieving said second object based at least in part on results of said prioritizing;
analyzing first content of said first object to determine whether said first object includes sensitive content prior to analyzing second content of said second object to determine whether said second object includes sensitive content…
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 7
Claim 1
Claim 4 / Claim 9
Claim 5 / Claim 10
Claim 8 / Claim 11 / Claim 18
Claim 6 / Claim 12
Claim 13 / Claim 19
Claim 14
Claim 15 / Claim 20
Claim 3 / Claim 16
Claim 7 / Claim 17
Claim 8
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 16
Claim 1
Claim 1. In a data governance system, a method for determining a likelihood that a file system object contains sensitive content, said method comprising:
obtaining a set of training metadata corresponding to a set of training file system objects, each file system object of said set of training file system objects having a known status indicating that said each file system object either contains sensitive content or does not contain sensitive content;
processing said set of training metadata to extract a set of training features from said set of training metadata, said training features corresponding to a particular subset of said training metadata being indicative of the probability that a corresponding particular training file system object contains sensitive content;
analyzing said set of training features to determine a relationship between said set of training features and said known statuses of said set of training file system objects;
informing a sensitivity estimation algorithm according to said relationship between said set of training features and said known statuses of said set of training file system objects;
obtaining first metadata and second metadata, said first metadata corresponding to a first file system object and said second metadata corresponding to a second file system object;
analyzing said first metadata according to said sensitivity estimation algorithm to generate a first estimate value based at least in part on said first metadata, said first estimate value being indicative of a first likelihood that said first file system object includes sensitive content…
Claim 1
Claim 11
Claims 3-4 / Claim 13-14
Claim 5 / Claim 15
Claim 6 / Claim 16
Claim 7 / Claim 17
Claim 8 / Claim 18
Claim 9 / Claim 19
Claim 10 / Claim 20
Claim 11
Claim 11
Claim 11
Claim 11
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, 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 1-4, 13-17, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pat. 8640251) in view of Furuichi et al. (US Pub. 20120069406).
Referring to claim 1, Lee discloses In a data governance system, a method for performing sensitive content analysis on a plurality of file system objects of a geographically remote file storage system associated with a particular client [col. 3, lines 33-44; a server computer comprising a remote server (e.g., web server) stores documents that can be downloaded by a user computer], said method comprising:
establishing a wide-area network connection with said remote file storage system [col. 3, lines 33-44; note connection to the server computer by the user computer];
receiving, via said wide-area network connection, first metadata and second metadata, said first metadata corresponding to at least a first object of said plurality of file system objects of said remote file storage system, and said second metadata corresponding to at least a second object of said plurality of file system objects of said remote file storage system [col. 7, lines 50-54; the documents are classified based on folder path];
analyzing said first metadata to generate a first estimate value based at least in part on said first metadata, said first estimate value being indicative of a likelihood that said first object includes sensitive content [col. 7, lines 50-54; a prediction confidential score is generated for each the documents based on its folder path];
analyzing said second metadata to generate a second estimate value based at least in part on said second metadata, said second estimate value being indicative of a likelihood that said second object includes sensitive content [col. 7, lines 50-54; a prediction confidential score is generated for each the documents based on its folder path];
prioritizing said first object and said second object, based at least in part on said first estimate value and said second estimate value [col. 7, lines 50-54; note that scoring is a form of prioritizing].
Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose retrieving said first object prior to retrieving said second object based at least in part on results of said prioritizing; and analyzing first content of said first object to determine whether said first object includes sensitive content prior to analyzing second content of said second object to determine whether said second object includes sensitive content.
However, Furuichi discloses retrieving said first object prior to retrieving said second object based at least in part on results of said prioritizing; and analyzing first content of said first object to determine whether said first object includes sensitive content prior to analyzing second content of said second object to determine whether said second object includes sensitive content [pars. 54, 62, and 82; scan priority of a document is determined based on the document’s confidentiality label].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data retrieval taught by Lee so that the confidential scores of the documents are used to determine scanning priority as taught by Furuichi. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently classify the documents [Furuichi, par. 82].
Referring to claim 2, Lee discloses The method of Claim 1, wherein: said first metadata is indicative of at least a first name and a first path of said first object; and said second metadata is indicative of at least a second name and a second path of said second object [col. 7, lines 50-54; col. 8, lines 13-19; the folder path includes a file name and a directory].
Referring to claim 3, Lee discloses The method of Claim 1, wherein: said step of analyzing said first metadata includes extracting a first set of features from said first metadata, said first set of features having been determined to be indicative of said likelihood that said first object includes sensitive content; said step of analyzing said first metadata includes analyzing said first set of features of said first metadata to generate said first estimate value; said step of analyzing said second metadata includes extracting a second set of features from said second metadata, said second set of features having been determined to be indicative of said likelihood that said second object includes sensitive content; and said step of analyzing said second metadata includes analyzing said second set of features of said second metadata to generate said second estimate value [col. 7, lines 50-54; col. 8, lines 13-19; the prediction confidential score is generated for each of the documents based on file characteristics (e.g., file extension or file naming convention) extracted from the document’s folder path].
Referring to claim 4, Lee discloses The method of Claim 3, further comprising: obtaining a first set of training metadata corresponding to a first set of file system objects, each object of said first set of file system objects having a known sensitivity corresponding to an amount of sensitive data known to be present in each respective file system object; processing said first set of training metadata to extract a first set of training features from said first set of training metadata; analyzing said first set of training features to determine a relationship between said first set of training features and said known sensitivities of said first set of file system objects; and wherein said step of analyzing said first set of features includes utilizing said relationship between said first set of training features and said known sensitivities to generate said first estimate value; and said step of analyzing said second set of features includes utilizing said relationship between said first set of training features and said known sensitivities to generate said second estimate value [col. 4, lines 39-45; col. 7, lines 50-60; col. 8, lines 8-19; known confidential scores of accessed files are stored in a log and used to generate prediction confidential scores of non-accessed files (i.e., the documents) based on similarity of file characteristics extracted from both the accessed and non-accessed files].
Referring to claim 13, Lee discloses The method of Claim 1, wherein: said step of analyzing said first metadata includes generating said first estimate value as a particular value within a range of possible values, a first extreme of said range of possible values indicating that said first object definitely contains sensitive information and a second extreme of said range of possible values indicating that said first object definitely does not contain sensitive information; and said step of prioritizing said first object and said second object includes prioritizing said first object above said second object, when said first estimate value is nearer said first extreme than said second estimate value [col. 4, lines 14-21; col. 8, Table 1; confidential scores have a range such that a document having a confidential score equal to or higher than a threshold may be classified as confidential, whereas a document having a confidential score lower than the threshold may be classified as public; note that scoring is a form of prioritizing].
Referring to claim 14, see at least the rejection for claim 1. Lee further discloses A data governance system for performing sensitive content analysis on a plurality of file system objects of a geographically remote file storage system associated with a particular client, said system comprising: at least one hardware processor; memory storing data and code, said code including a set of predefined instructions configured to cause said hardware processor to perform a corresponding set of operations when executed by said hardware processor [fig. 1, processor 101 and main memory 108 comprising software modules 110].
Referring to claim 15, see the rejection for claim 2.
Referring to claim 16, see the rejection for claim 3.
Referring to claim 17, see the rejection for claim 4.
Referring to claim 26, see the rejection for claim 13.
Referring to claim 28, see the rejection for claim 1, which incorporates the claimed method.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241. 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.
/Grace Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights