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 .
This action is in response to the amendment and request for reconsideration dated 03/11/2026.
Claims 1-9, 12-33 are pending. Claims 23-33 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A detailed reasoning is provided below.
Applicant’s request for reconsideration, dated 3/11/2026, page 10-11, cited below for convenience.
“The Office Action asserts that Fakhraie discloses the limitation "providing access to the selected one or more data elements to the second user," citing disclosure that a computing device may present a display icon via an interactive graphical interface allowing selection between first user information and second user information to be made accessible to an entity, and that the computing device may receive a signal corresponding to a user selection of one of the first user information or second user information (col. 4, line 50 - col. 5, line 13). However, the cited disclosure merely describes selecting between different types of information associated with a single user and does not disclose providing access to a second user as recited in the claims. Rather, the disclosure relates to controlling what information is made accessible to an entity, such as a service provider or system component, not a separate second user account.
The Office Action further relies on Fakhraie as teaching "providing an indication identifying the one or more data elements as being accessible to the second user," citing passages describing an interface that indicates whether access to user information is permitted or restricted for an entity (col. 5, lines 14-22; col. 5, line 44 - col. 6, line 20). However, these disclosures relate to permission settings for an entity, not identifying data elements as accessible to a distinct second user, as recited in the claims. The Office Action also cites Fakhraie for "providing an indication identifying one or more other data elements not accessible to the second user," relying on disclosure describing selection of user information accessible to the entity (col. 6, lines 32-65). These passages merely describe selecting which information is accessible to an entity, rather than identifying data elements inaccessible to a second user relative to a first user.”
In response to applicants’ argument that Fakhraie “does not disclose providing access to a second user as recited in the claims. Rather, the disclosure relates to controlling what information is made accessible to an entity…”, examiner notes that Fakhraie not only teaches the access to the second users but also teaches the revoking the access, See below Fakhraie, par. [0049].
In response to applicants’ argument that Fakhraie “merely describe selecting which information is accessible to an entity, rather than identifying data elements inaccessible to a second user relative to a first user…” examiner notes that Fakhraie allows a user indicate the status of an access permission for each of the merchants. See below Fakhraie, par. [0049].
“(49) The status indicators 416 indicate the status of various access permissions that the customer 102 has provided to various merchants. In the example shown in FIG. 4, the customer 102 is currently permitting each of the merchants identified in the merchant listing 412 to access at least some form of customer information maintained at the financial institution computing system 110. However, in some embodiments, the customer 102 may provide an input to program logic being executed by the customer mobile device 200 by interacting with the status indicators 416. For example, the customer 102 may revoke a particular merchant's permission to access customer information by pressing the “off” portion of a particular status indicator 416. In response, the customer mobile device 200 may transmit a notification signal to the financial institution computing system 110 and, in response, the access control circuit 122 may update the permissions for that merchant such that the financial institution computing system 110 will not grant various information requests regarding the customer 102 transmitted by the third party system 106 to the financial institution computing system 110 over the network 126. Alternatively or additionally, the financial institution computing system 110 may update settings associated with the customer 102's account such that any transaction request from that merchant is denied. Thus, by the interface 400, the customer 102 is able to control the access of various third party systems 106 to information.”
The arguments made by the applicant is therefore not persuasive.
The rejection set forth in the previous action dated 12/08/2026 is maintained.
Claims 1-7, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being anticipated by Fakhraie et al. (US Patent No. 11,899,815 B1, hereinafter "Fakhraie").
The 102 rejection dated 12/08/2025 is hereby incorporated in its entirety.
Claims 8-9, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fakhraie et al. (US Patent No. 11/899815 B1, hereinafter "Fakhraie") in view of Tarabay et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0066550 A1, hereinafter "Tarabay").
The 103 rejection dated 12/08/2025 is hereby incorporated in its entirety.
Applicants argued claim 1 only. Applicants have not provided any arguments with respect to the remaining claims.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U S PG-PUB No. 20210117425 published on April 4, 2021, and issued to Rao et al., hereinafter “Rao.”
With respect to claim 1,
Rao teaches a method comprising:
receiving, from a first user, an indication to provide a second user access to a data element; (Rao, Fig. 11A, element “Select Field”; see par. [0755])
providing an interactive list of data elements associated with the first user (Fig. 11A, element 1101 is an interactive field);
receiving input indicating selection of one or more data elements from the list of data elements (Fig. 11A, 1101);
providing access to the selected one or more data elements to the second user;
providing an indication identifying the one or more data elements as being accessible to the second user (“user can indicate one or more other users as having access” – Rao, [0755])
; and
providing an indication identifying one or more other data elements not accessible to the second user (see Rao, [0755].
Rao, [0755] To increase security of the datasets stored by the query acceleration data store, access controls can be implemented. For example, each dataset can be associated with an access control list, and the query coordinator 3304 can provide an identification of a requesting user to the worker nodes 3306 and/or query acceleration data store 3308. For example, the identification can be an authorization or authentication token associated with the user. The query acceleration data store 3308 can then ensure that only authorized users are allowed access to stored datasets. For example, a user who causes a dataset to be stored in the query acceleration data store 3308 (e.g., based on a provided query) can be indicated as being authorized (e.g., in an access control list associated with the dataset). Optionally, the user can indicate one or more other users as having access. Optionally, the data intake and query system 3301 can utilize role-based access controls to allow any user associated with a particular role to access particular datasets. In this way, the stored information can be secure while enabling the query acceleration data store 3308 to service multitudes of users.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 24-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U S PG-PUB No. 20210117425 published on April 4, 2021, and issued to Rao et al., hereinafter “Rao” in view of US Patent 11899815 granted to “Fakhraie.”
With respect to claim 24 (wherein the second user is provided with a link to set up the second user account, which upon activation, enables viewing of the selected one or more data elements accessible via the second user account), Rao teaches the “other user” can access to stored datasets, Rao does not explicitly indicate user accounts.
With respect to claim 24, Fakhraie teaches managing information of account holders (see BACKGROUND, col. 1, lines 35-45) and more specifically teaches the selection of merchant accounts, see Fig. 4, 412-416, where customer accounts can be access, assigned and edited, and see Fig. 14 for revocation of accounts. See also Fakhraie, col. 30, line 41 through col. 33, line 10.
(96) Referring back to FIG. 14 and the method 1400, a customer response is received at 1408. In some arrangements, the financial institution computing system 110 receives a response from the customer 102 via the customer device 108. The customer response may be input by the customer 102 into the alert transmitted to a customer device 108 at 1406. The customer response provides an indication as to whether the potential fraudulent activity is authorized or unauthorized. In arrangements where the potential fraudulent activity is authorized by the customer 102, the customer response may include a reversal request. The financial institution computing system 110 determines if the customer response includes a reversal request at 1410. If a reversal request was received, the access privileges removed at 1404 are restored at 1412. If a reversal request was not received, or after the access privileges are restored at 1412, the method 1400 ends
With respect to claim 24, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing of the invention to incorporate the selection feature of Fakhraie in Rao to make the system more user friendly and to protect customers against fraudulent activities.
With respect claim 25 and 26 (the method of claim 1 further comprising providing a user interface for the first user to view information identifying all other users granted access to each of the one or more data elements), Rao does not explicitly indicate the selection of an account, however, Fakhraie teaches the selection of an account in Fig. 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing of the invention to incorporate the selection feature of Fakhraie in Rao to make the system more user friendly.
With respect to claim 26 (the method of claim 1 further comprising providing a user interface for the first user to: view information identifying whether the second user has accessed each of the selected one or more data elements; view information identifying when the second user accessed each of the selected one or more data elements; and view information identifying a location of the user when accessing each of the selected one or more data elements), Rao does not explicitly indicate the viewing of second or other users, however, Fakhraie teaches the selection of an account in Fig. 14, 1402-1412. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing of the invention to incorporate the selection feature of Fakhraie in Rao to make the system more user friendly and to protect customers against fraudulent activities.
With respect to claim 27 (the method of claim 1, wherein the first user and second user each have accounts with an account provider and the data elements of the first user are stored for the account of the user, wherein the method further comprises: detecting that the second user has accessed the account associated with the second user; detecting that the second user has switched from accessing the account associated with the second user to accessing the account associated with the first user; providing a notification to the first user of the second user accessing the account associated with the first user, wherein the notifying the identifies that the second user has accessed the account associated with the first user and a physical location of the second user at the time the second user accessed the account associated with the first user) the rationale used for claim 26 is applied.
With respect to claim 28 (the method of claim 27, further comprising: receiving input from the first user corresponding to the notification; based on the input, temporarily suspending the second user's access to the account of the first user until later permission for access is received from the first user), the rationale used for claim 27 is applied and see also, Fig. 14, step 1402-1412.
[0099] At block 3914, if the flexible referential data structure has not received a request to release or transfer the account associated with the deceased owner, the flexible referential data structure may suspend the account associated with the deceased owner.
With respect to claim 29 (the method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving a selection identifying the second user; providing a listing of all of the data elements of the list of data elements associated with the first user to which the second user has been granted access; receiving input changing access permission with respect to one or more of the data elements of the listing; and changing the access permission in accordance with the received input changing the access permission with respect to the one or more of the data elements of the listing.
With respect to claim 30 (the method of claim 29, wherein changing the access permission comprises giving the second user permission to add, edit, delete, or change the one more of the data elements of the listing), the rationale used for claim 27 is applied and see also, Fig. 14, steno 1402-1412.
With respect to claim 31 (the method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving a selection identifying a category of data elements; providing a first listing of all of the data elements of the list of data elements matching the category and associated with the first user; and providing a second listing of all of the other users having access to each of the data elements of the listing), Rao the rationale above is applied and Rao teaches the use of various categories that are implemented by an indexer.
See Rao, [0240] The indexer can use the categorization criteria to identify categorization criteria-value pairs or categorization criteria values by which to categorize or group the results. The categorization criteria-value pairs can correspond to one or more field-value pair entries stored in a relevant inverted index, one or more index-value pairs based on a directory in which the inverted index is located or an entry in the inverted index (or other means by which an inverted index can be associated with a partition), or other criteria-value pair that identifies a general category and a particular value for that category. The categorization criteria values can correspond to the value portion of the categorization criteria-value pair.
Claim 32 ( the method of claim 1 further comprising maintaining, in a data structure, explicit associations between the selected one or more data elements and one or more related data elements of a different type, wherein the data elements include at least documents, people, places, and tangible things, wherein the explicit associations form a network of related data elements in which any document, person, place, or tangible thing is associated with any other document, person, place, or tangible thing), is rejected under the same rationale as applied to claim 30-31 above because documents and people are categories. See Rao, [0240]
With respect to claim 33 (the method of claim 1 further comprising refraining from displaying, to the second user, any indication of the existence of the one or more additional data elements associated with the selected one or more data elements that are not accessible to the second user), the rationale set forth above is applied and Fakhraie teaches the revocation of access by a person/entity that commits fraud and revocation of access is a revocation of a view.
See Fakhraie, col 29, lines 26-30; (83) The account access toggle switch 1206 is configured to receive a customer input to permit/revoke the depicted merchant's access to information associated with the selected account. In the example shown, the customer 102 is providing the third party system 106 associated with the merchant with access to the account information. In response to the customer 102 switching the account access toggle switch 1206 to an opposing position, the customer mobile device 200 may transmit a command to the financial institution computing system 110 causing the financial institution computing system 110 to update the customer 102's access permissions to prevent the merchant from having access to the associated account information. In some embodiments, the account access toggle switch 1206 is configured to receive a customer input to temporarily inactivate the selected account.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 7/16/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The Rao reference has been provided in the 7/16/2026 IDS.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAIN T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
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.
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights