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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed 4/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11-12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210124727 to Todd in view of US 20250047679 to Gaikwad.
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 ¶ 14, 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 in a data repository (¶ 19, data stored in repository; ¶ 61-65, 53, consulting, mapping, applying, and storing data in association with data policy; ¶ 23-25; 48-49; abstract, constraining data according to data policy);
receiving, by the PADS from a second entity of the edge environment, a request for the data by the PADS;
dynamically modifying the data policy in response to a challenge in the confidence score and reapplying the modified data policy to the data (¶ 79, review and adjustment of scoring; and application of modified policy to data; abstract, receiving request for data access and enabling access to data based on policy; see also ¶ 19-20).
Todd fails to teach but Gaikwad teaches:
the data policy specifies one or more data access controls and/or data handling restrictions based on a relative confidence level of the data and an intended recipient of the data; access to the stored data is constrained in accordance with the data policy; evaluating the request based on the confidence score and enforcing the data policy to constrain access to and use of the data by the second entity, thereby enabling data policy-controlled access, by the second entity, to the data (abstract, ¶ 5-6, fig. 7, 9).
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 Gaikwad. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Gaikwad would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating access control to resources (Gaikwad, ¶ 5-6).
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(s) 3, 5-6, 10, 13, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd and Gaikwad 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
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
Prosecution Insights