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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barrall et al. (9,396,156).
For claims 21, 29, 37, Barrall teaches a computer-implemented method and system (abstract, background, summary and claims) comprising:
maintaining in memory (col. 7, lines 5-15) a list of addresses (col. 23, lines 55-67) for one or more virtual storage containers (col. 8, lines 1-25), each storage container comprising i) a data set associated with a user account (col. 10, lines 1-10), ii) data representing a level of permission (col. 28, lines 35-50), and iii) an individual address for the respective virtual storage container (col. 9, lines 15-25);
receiving a request (col. 11, lines 10-30) to provide access for a software based service to at least part of the data set associated with a user account (col. 10, lines 30-60);
in response to receiving the request to provide access to at least part of the data set associated with the user account, accessing at least one virtual storage container and updating the data representing the level of permission for access by the software based service (col. 28, lines 50-67); and
transmitting, to the software based service, data representing the individual address of the at least one virtual storage container with updated permissions (col. 10, lines 30-60).
For claims 23, 31, 39, Barrall teaches each virtual storage container is associated with different software services (col. 28, lines 50-67).
For claims 24, 32, 40, Barrall teaches that the data representing the level of permission correlates to an amount of access provided to the data set associated with the user account (col. 9, lines 15-25).
For claims 27, 35, Barrall teaches transmitting a message indicating an update to permissions based on a change in the level of permission for a software based service (col. 38, line 35 – col. Col. 39, line 55).
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) 22, 30, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrall as applied to claims 21, 29, 37 above, and further in view of Roth et al. (10,089,476).
For claims 22, 30, 38, Barrall does not expressly disclose the limits of the claims. Roth teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) wherein each of the data sets associated with a user account in each virtual storage container, contains subsets (col. 20, lines 1-30), each subset containing different types of data associated with a user (col. 24, lines 20-55). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Roth in order to provide improvements to account control (col. 1,lines 35-60).
Claim(s) 25, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrall as applied to claims 21, 29 above, and further in view of Adjakple et al. (9,693,366).
For claims 25, 33, Barrall does not expressly disclose the elements. Adjakple teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes transmitting to the software based service, data representing the individual address of the at least one storage container with updated permissions (col. 36, lines 20-40) is responsive to the software based service requesting authentication credentials (col. 38, lines 50-67). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Adjakple in order to provide improvements to the service network structure (col. 1, lines 15-45).
Claim(s) 26, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrall as applied to claims 21, 29 above, and further in view of Roth et al. (9,420,007).
For claims 26, 34, Barrall does not expressly disclose the elements. Roth teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) where at least some of the data sets associated the user account across the one or more virtual storage containers at least partially overlap in stored information (col. 12, lines 15-60). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Roth in order to provide improvements to organizational systems (col. 1, lines 5-25).
Claim(s) 28, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrall as applied to claims 21, 29 above, and further in view of Toshniwal et al. (2012/0,303,831).
For claims 28, 36, Barrall does not expressly disclose the included elements. Toshniwal teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) where at least some of the data in at least one container is associated with advertisement preferences of a user (Paras 39-40). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Toshniwal in order to provide improvements to communications establishment (Paras 5-7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)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 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights