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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/4/2025 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11-12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210124727 to Todd.
Regarding claim 1, Todd teaches a method, comprising:
receiving data, by a privacy-aware data sharing system (PADS), from a first entity of an edge environment, and the data has been assigned a confidence score by the first entity, and the confidence score is a function of an extent to which security measures have been implemented in the first entity (¶ 25-26, 31, fig. 1-2, receiving scored data; see also ¶ 19, 21, and 71-72, edge entities);
by the PADS, consulting the confidence score associated with the data; by the PADS, mapping the confidence score to a data policy; by the PADS, applying the data policy to the data and storing the data in association with the data policy (¶ 61-65, 53, consulting, mapping, applying, and storing data in association with data policy; ¶ 23-25; 48-49);
receiving, by the PADS from a second entity of the edge environment, a request for the data by the PADS, enabling data policy-controlled access, by the second entity, to the data (abstract, receiving request for data access and enabling access to data; see also ¶ 19-20).
Regarding claim 2, 12,
Todd teaches:
wherein the data policy that is applied is based on the confidence score (¶ 23-25, 45, 48-49, 61-65).
Regarding claim 4, 14,
Todd teaches:
wherein the first entity and the second entity comprise respective nodes of a DCF (¶ 19, 21, 71-72).
Regarding claim 7, 17,
Todd teaches:
wherein the confidence score is a function of a trustworthiness of the first entity (¶ 17-23).
Regarding claim 8, 18,
Todd teaches:
wherein a lower value of the confidence score corresponds to relatively greater restrictions on use of the data than restrictions corresponding to a relatively higher value of the confidence score (¶ 18-19).
Claim 11 is addressed by similar rationale as 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 10, 13, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd in view of US 20240283826 to Ganguli.
Regarding claim 3, 13,
Todd fails to teach but Ganguli teaches:
wherein the data policy comprises a privacy requirement concerning the data (¶ 7-10, privacy requirement based on identity, etc).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Ganguli. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Ganguli would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating access control and verification (Ganguli, ¶ 4-10).
Regarding claim 5, 15,
Ganguli teaches:
wherein the data policy is updated automatically in response to a change in a data access requirement concerning the data (¶ 8, 64, adaptive controls based on changes in behavior or context; ¶ 70, policy, rules, configuration changes and remediation). Motivation to include Ganguli is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 6, 16,
Ganguli teaches:
wherein the data policy is updated automatically in response to a change in the confidence score (¶ 64, 87, ¶ 165, policy updates based on change in risk/confidence). Motivation to include Ganguli is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 10, 20,
Ganguli teaches:
wherein the data policy comprises a security requirement concerning the data (¶ 171-173, 212, 229-231). Motivation to include Ganguli is the same as presented above.
CONCLUSION
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445