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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, 15 and 17 has been amended. Claim 21 has been newly added. No Claims has been/remains canceled. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
Applicant arguments towards to Specifications have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 02/12/2026. The objection has been withdrawn in view of the amended Specifications.
Applicant amendments to the Claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 02/12/2026. The objection has been withdrawn in view of the amended Claims.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 10-17 of the remark filed on 05/12/2026, on the newly amended limitations of independent Claims 1: “wherein enabling access to the file is permitted based on access approval data from one of the user accounts; and based on the attempt to access the file, based on determining that the file is the sensitive file, and.”, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 11-12 that the cited references fail to teach wherein enabling access to the file is permitted based on access approval data from one of the user accounts; and based on the attempt to access the file, based on determining that the file is the sensitive file. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Birch teaches on Par. (0020 and 0025) a receiving of access approval data such as a response that the user has access to the data file and on Par. (0006, 0045) describing each user associated with access approval data or a response for access is linked to an account or username/credential account for each specific user. Birch further discloses on Par. (0021) an attempt of access on a data file and on Par. (0041-0042 and 0007) describing a time-sensitive data file and the data file being a secure application that is sensitive from preventing nefarious entities and wrongful access. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
However Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 10-17 of the remark filed on 05/12/2026, on the newly amended limitations of independent claim 1 “wherein the notifying comprises sending respective notifications to respective user accounts of the user accounts;.”, arguments are persuasive.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Kaidi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240176902) and Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449) further in view of Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168), has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the following prior art: Gavish et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220191251) in conjunction Kaidi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240176902) and Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449) further in view of Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168)). Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below for a detailed explanation.
For the reasons stated above and the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, see Applicant’s Remarks Page 10-17, regarding allowance of the application. Examiner asserts that claims 1-21 are rejected for the reasons stated above in conjunction with the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Conclusion: Kaidi- Chugunov-Gavish-Birch teaches the aforementioned limitations of independent claims and 1, 9 and 15 rendering the claim limitations obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-2, 7, 9, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaidi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240176902, hereinafter referred to as “Kaidi"), Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449, hereinafter referred to as “Chugunov") and Gavish et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220191251, hereinafter referred to as “Gavish") further in view of Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168, hereinafter referred to as “Birch")
In regards to Claim 1, Kaidi teaches a system, comprising: (Figure 7 label 700; system))
at least one processor; and (Figure 7 label 714; processor))
at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: (Figure 7 label 714, 710; processor with memory)), (Par. (0089); processor executing one or more instructions with memory component))
marking a file in a computer file storage system as a sensitive file; (Par. (0064); data files in data repositories are tagged as classified))
determining that an attempt to access the file has been made via a first user account; (Par. (0064); detection of a user attempting to access a data file), (Par. (0040-0041); via a first user account (user that is attempting access is associated with user account))
Kaidi does not explicitly teach based on determining that the file is the sensitive file, notifying at least one device, associated with a security group, of the attempt to access, wherein the security group comprises user accounts other than the first user account and wherein the notifying comprises sending respective notifications to respective user accounts of the user accounts; after the notifying, receiving access approval data that is associated with at least one of the user accounts of the security group, wherein the access approval data is indicative of granting the first user account access to the file; and wherein enabling access to the file is permitted based on access approval data from one of the user accounts; and based on the attempt to access the file, based on determining that the file is the sensitive file, and based on receiving the access approval data, enabling access to the file via the first user account.
Wherein Chugunov teaches based on the attempt to access the file, and based on determining that the file is the sensitive file, (Par. (0031); attempted access to prohibited documents)), (Par. (0006-0007); files and documents with confidential information))
notifying at least one device, associated with a security group, of the attempt to access, (Par. (0031); notifying the one device (server component 104) of attempts made to obtain access of prohibited documents), (Par. (0027) and (Figure 1 label 104, 132; one device associated with a security group (server component with administrator capabilities)), (Par. (0027); security group (administrators, system administrators, and security officers associated with server component)), (Par. (0054); one device, associated with security group (server component verifying first user))
wherein the security group comprises user accounts other than the first user account, and (Par. (0054); security group (server component) comprises at least one user account (first and second)), (Par. (0051); the security group comprises at least one user account (administrator module and monitor module inside server component corresponding to identifying list of users permitted to access confidential document based on account data))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi to incorporate the teaching of Chugunov to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of sensitive information in data files and regulating access, with the motivation of safeguarding confidential and sensitive information from third parties and leaks with concerns of identifying unauthorized access, by notifying devices in the system the file and attempted access can be communicated with markings and detection can be even more effective with reporting. (Chugunov Par. (0003-0004, 0031, 0047))
Kaidi and Chugunov do not explicitly teach wherein the notifying comprises sending respective notifications to respective user accounts of the user accounts; after the notifying, receiving access approval data that is associated with at least one of the user accounts of the security group, wherein the access approval data is indicative of granting the first user account access to the file; and wherein enabling access to the file is permitted based on access approval data from one of the user accounts; and based on the attempt to access the file, based on determining that the file is the sensitive file, and based on receiving the access approval data, enabling access to the file via the first user account.
Wherein Gavish teaches wherein the notifying comprises sending respective notifications to respective user accounts of the user accounts; (Par. (0070-0077) attempting access to shared file and warning notification sent to individuals with accounts), (Par. (0037); individuals corresponding to accounts))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi and Chugunov to incorporate the teaching of Gavish to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of access control for sensitive files, with the motivation of enforcing access policies to enhance security and prevent risk on sharing files with unauthorized activities by sending notifications to accounts access and security policies can specify file sharing more effectively. (Gavish Par. (0002-0005 and 0070))
Kaidi, Chugunov and Gavish Do not explicitly teach after the notifying, receiving access approval data that is associated with at least one of the user accounts of the security group, wherein the access approval data is indicative of granting the first user account access to the file; and wherein enabling access to the file is permitted based on access approval data from one of the user accounts; and based on the attempt to access the file, based on determining that the file is the sensitive file, and based on receiving the access approval data, enabling access to the file via the first user account.
Wherein Birch teaches after the notifying, receiving access approval data that is associated with at least one of the user accounts of the security group, (Par. (0014 and 0020); after the notifying, receiving access approval data (notification indicating attempting access to network and data file and received response indicating authorized access of data file within designated period of time)), (Par. (0025-0026); receiving access approval data (response received from scheduling authority that authorizes the user access to data file outside of time period and designated access to data file for period of time)), (Figure 1 labels 300, 400, 500, 560, 356; that is associated with at least one of the at least one user account (computing platform with users and credentials) of the security group (third computing platform)), (Par. (0011); security group (third computing platform that verifies access schedule, inputs, times etc.)), (Par. (0006 and 0045); at least one of the at least one user account (users with credentials, username accounts etc.)) (Examiner note: In the instant application the specification defines on Par. (0073-0074) approval data the access approval data indicates an amount of time for which access to the file via the first user account is approved. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted in light of the specification that received approval data is a response message or data indicating a period of time the file is access by user))
wherein the access approval data is indicative of granting the first user account access to the file; and (Par. (0020, 0025); receiving response and providing access to user) (Par. (0042); granting access to data file for specific period of time)), (Par. (0006 and 0045); the first user account (users with credentials, username accounts etc.))
wherein enabling access to the file is permitted based on access approval data from one of the user accounts; and (Par. (0020, 0025); receiving response that user can access the data file) (Par. (0006 and 0045); access approval data from one of the user accounts (user that is granted access has credentials, username accounts etc.))
based on the attempt to access the file, based on determining that the file is the sensitive file, and (Par. (0021); user attempting to access the data file), (Par. (0041-0042 and 0007); data file is secure application to prevent nefarious entities and wrongful possession and data file with time-sensitive with time periods for access to prevent wrongdoer))
based on receiving the access approval data, enabling access to the file via the first user account. (Par. (0020 and 0025); based on response received; authorizing access to data file for designated period of time to user)), (Par. (0006 and 0045); the first user account (users with credentials, username accounts etc.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi, Chugunov and Gavish to incorporate the teaching of Birch to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing and transferring of data files with sensitive and private information, with the motivation of detecting incidents when attempting to login or access data files and creating a heighten level of security of sensitive applications by monitoring malicious actor with a time component and predefined level of time. (Birch Par. (0002-0003))
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch teach the system of claim 1, Kaidi further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the marking of the file as the sensitive file comprises: (Par. (0064); tagging data file is classified))
associating the file with first metadata that comprises a first indication that the file is the sensitive file; and (Par. (0075); associating file with first metadata (data file associated with link as metadata contains sensitivity level in section)),
associating the file with second metadata that comprises a second indication of user accounts permitted to access the file. (Par. (0084); associating file with second metadata (data file with different sections of metadata that determine a clearance classification based on metadata of data file)), (Par. (0022); a second indication of user accounts permitted to access the file (clearance classification of data files provides indication of who/ which users with accounts can access data file and when user attempts to access data file it is determined whether to grant access)), (Figure 3B labels 302 first paragraph, second paragraph (sections as metadata within file 302 as first, second, metadata)), (Par. (0031, 0041); user accounts permitted to access the file (one or more users accounts corresponding to data file))
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch teach the system of claim 1, Birch further teaches wherein the access approval data indicates an amount of time for which access to the file via the first user account is approved, and (Par. (0025-0026); access approval data (response received from scheduling authority that authorizes the user designated access to data file for period of time)), (Par. (0006 and 0045);first user account (users with credentials, username accounts etc.))
wherein the enabling of the access to the file via the first user account is performed for the amount of time. (Par. (0020 and 0025); based on response received; authorizing access to data file for designated period of time to user)), (Par. (0058 and 0060); granting access to user within a certain time period e.g. “next 10 minutes)) (Par. (0006 and 0045); the first user account (users with credentials, username accounts etc.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi, Chugunov and Gavish to incorporate the teaching of Birch to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing and transferring of data files with sensitive and private information, with the motivation of implementing a concept of time or threshold period in which access is granted to regulate user and prevent wrongful access to network and files that fall outside of the defined time frame, this creates awareness and a level security based on those parameters (Birch Par. (0041-0043))
In regards to Claim 9, claim 9 recites similar limitations to independent claim 1 and the teachings of Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch address all the limitations discussed in independent claim 1 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
In regards to Claim 14, the combination of Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch teach the method of claim 9, Kaidi further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the facilitating of the access to the file to the user account comprises: (Par. (0022); granting access to data files to user)), (Par. (0031); of the user account (users corresponding to accounts with organization and their digital files)),
Kaidi, Chugunov and Gavish do not explicitly teach determining that a credential associated with the user account is valid regarding accessing the file, wherein the credential is separate from the access approval data.
Wherein Birch teaches determining that a credential associated with the user account is valid regarding accessing the file, (Par. (0015-0016); determine credentials are valid then provide user access))
wherein the credential is separate from the access approval data. (Par. (0015-0016); credential corresponding to validity and providing access), ((Par. (0025-0026); separate from the access approval data (response different than credential that is that corresponds to authorized access designated for a period of time to the file ))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi and Chugunov and Gavish to incorporate the teaching of Birch to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing and transferring of data files with sensitive and private information, with the motivation of utilizing credentials to grant authorized and determine valid user using credentials based on time threshold as a means of matching and comparing to regulate access to the data files. (Birch Par. (0062-0066))
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaidi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240176902, hereinafter referred to as “Kaidi"), Gavish et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220191251, hereinafter referred to as “Gavish"), Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449, hereinafter referred to as “Chugunov") and Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168, hereinafter referred to as “Birch") further in view of Khot et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200026781, hereinafter referred to as “Khot")
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch do not explicitly teach wherein the first metadata comprises a Boolean value.
Wherein Khot teaches wherein the first metadata comprises a Boolean value. (Par. (0072-0073); Boolean flag added to metadata of File1 corresponding to access of files))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch to incorporate the teaching of Khot to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing and transferring of data files with sensitive and private information, with the motivation of using Boolean values as a flagging and detection mechanism to identify valid data in each file and in return facilitate access to each file mor effectively. (Khot Par. (0006-0007, 0025 and 0031))
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch teach the system of claim 1, Kaidi further teaches wherein the first metadata comprises a first extended attribute of the file, and (Par. (0084 and 0022); first metadata comprises a first extended attribute (metadata with clearance classification and clearance classification with specified allowed users granted access to file)), (Examiner Note: In the instant application the specification states on Par. (0024-0025) an extended attribute can comprise “allowed_users” that are allowed to access the file. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as such))
Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch do not explicitly teach wherein the second metadata comprises a second extended attribute of the file.
Wherein Khot teaches wherein the second metadata comprises a second extended attribute of the file. (Figure 2B labels 236, 238 and Par. (0041); second metadata comprises a second extended value (multiple rows of metadata of file contains Boolean flags), (Par. (0025-0026 and 0072-0073); second metadata comprises a second extended value (metadata of file contains Boolean flags that contain true or false), (Examiner Note: In the instant application the specification states on Par. (0024-0025) an extended attribute can also comprise Boolean values of true or false in metadata. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as such))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch to incorporate the teaching of Khot to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing and transferring of data files with sensitive and private information, with the motivation of implementing multiple metadata associated with each file as an attribute to help map and identify the data files location, manage access and share portions of users more effectively with better management techniques based on metadata and attributes. (Khot Par. (0004-0007 and 0041))
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaidi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240176902, hereinafter referred to as “Kaidi"), Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449, hereinafter referred to as “Chugunov") Gavish et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220191251, hereinafter referred to as “Gavish") and Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168, hereinafter referred to as “Birch") further in view of Bendersky et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210029100, hereinafter referred to as “Bendersky")
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch teach the system of claim 1, Kaidi further teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the enabling of the access to the file comprises: (Par. (0064); granting/authorizing access to file)
determining that the first metadata indicates that the file is the sensitive file; and (Par. (0075); associating file with first metadata (data file associated with link as metadata contains sensitivity level in section))
Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch do not explicitly teach determining that the first user account is represented in the second metadata.
Wherein Bendersky teaches determining that the first user account is represented in the second metadata. (Par. (0060); determining stored profile contains unique metadata of file by matching)), (Par. (0064); second metadata (one or more metadata (unique, hardware etc.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch to incorporate the teaching of Bendersky to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of sensitive and private information in data files, with the motivation of creating security measures against sensitive data to prevent attackers to obtain information and gaining access, by implementing metadata that represents account information a match and comparison can be conducted and access of files and sensitive data can be securely protected with authentication and monitoring techniques. (Bendersky Par. (0002-0006 and 0060))
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaidi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240176902, hereinafter referred to as “Kaidi"), Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449, hereinafter referred to as “Chugunov") Gavish et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220191251, hereinafter referred to as “Gavish")and Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168, hereinafter referred to as “Birch") further in view of Webber et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210142916 , hereinafter referred to as “Webber")
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch teach the system of claim 1, Kaidi further teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the file is a first file, and wherein the operations further comprise: (Par. (0064); file in plurality of files stored in data repository is attempted to be accessed))
Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch do not explicitly teach based on determining that a second file omits third metadata that indicates that the second file is the sensitive file, authorizing access the second file via a third user account based on credentials associated with the third user account, wherein the third user account comprises the first user account or another user account other than the first user account or the at least one user account.
Wherein Webber teaches based on determining that a second file omits third metadata that indicates that the second file is the sensitive file, (Par. (0041 and 0044-0045); second files (bundles of plurality of bundles that contain private documents)), (Par. (0044-0047); determining that a second file omits third metadata (removing private documents from bundles)), (Figure 6 labels 1-6; second file (medical review bundle) omits third metadata (private documents 4-6)), (Figure 7 labels 10, 12; second file (medical review bundle) omits third metadata (removes private document)), (Par. (0047); that indicates the second file is the sensitive file (private documents corresponding to medical review))
authorizing access the second file via a third user account based on credentials associated with the third user account, (Par. (0043-0044) authorizing access to private documents and bundles via third user account (employee access to documents by authenticating with credentials))
wherein the third user account comprises the first user account or another user account other than the first user account or the at least one user account. (Par. (0043-0044); wherein third user account (employee authenticated by credentials to view documents) comprises first user account (customer with account))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch to incorporate the teaching of Webber to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of sensitive and private information in data files and regulating access, with the motivation of securely tracking and sharing documents and files and allow users to authenticate themselves and give the valid party rightful privileges with the ability to modify remove, omit and regulate access to certain documents and in return enhance security. (Webber Par. (0002 and 0041-0045))
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaidi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240176902, hereinafter referred to as “Kaidi"), Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449, hereinafter referred to as “Chugunov") Gavish et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220191251, hereinafter referred to as “Gavish") and Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168, hereinafter referred to as “Birch") further in view of Ankur Patel et al. (U.S Pub. No. US 20190230092, hereinafter referred to as “Ankur Patel")
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch teach the system of claim 1, Birch further teaches wherein the access approval data indicates an amount of time for which access to the file via the first user account is approved, and wherein the operations further comprise: (Par. (0025-0026); access approval data indicates an amount of time for which access to the file (response received indicating a designated time the file can be accessed)), (Par. (0006 and 0045); first user account (users with credentials, username accounts etc.))
wherein the indication of the first user account indicates that the first user account has been authorized to access the file based on information received from the at least one device associated with the security group. (Par. (0018, 0020-0021); after indication of that user has accessed file outside of time period, providing access to user for designated period of time), (Par. (0018); received from the at least one device associated with the security group (user with credentials chosen from group of users after verifying and receiving response/input))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi, Chugunov and Gavish to incorporate the teaching of Birch to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing and transferring of data files with sensitive and private information, with the motivation of implementing a concept of time or threshold period in which access is granted to regulate user and prevent wrongful access to network and files that fall outside of the defined time frame, by having an indication or alert that the access falls outside of time frame this creates awareness and a level security based on those parameters (Birch Par. (0041-0043))
Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch do not explicitly teach removing an indication of the first user account from metadata for the file after the amount of time has elapsed,
Wherein Ankur Patel teaches removing an indication of the first user account from metadata for the file after the amount of time has elapsed, (Par. (0082); when the expiration time is reached removing an indication of the first user account from metadata for the file (removing credential information from the document)), (Par. (0049); the first user account (accounts with decentralized identifiers)), (Par. (0087-0088); an the first user account (accounts with decentralized identifiers corresponding to documents))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch to incorporate the teaching of Ankur Patel to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing data files with various user accounts that contain private information, with the motivation of easily managing entities and regulating access and permissions to verify the integrity of users based on credentials and indications to authorize rightful access to specific entities. (Ankur Patel Par. (0005-0006))
Claim(s) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaidi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240176902, hereinafter referred to as “Kaidi"), Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449, hereinafter referred to as “Chugunov") Gavish et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220191251, hereinafter referred to as “Gavish") and Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168, hereinafter referred to as “Birch") further in view of Kartoun et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210084049 , hereinafter referred to as “Kartoun ")
In regards to Claim 10, the combination of Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch teach the method of claim 9, Kaidi further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the determining that the user account has made the attempt to access the file comprises: (Par. (0064); detection of a user attempting to access a data file,)), (Par. (0040-0041); via a first user account (user that is attempting access is associated with user account))
Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch do not explicitly teach receiving user input data at a user interface that is indicative of the attempt to access the file, wherein the user input data is associated with the user account.
Wherein Kartoun teaches receiving user input data at a user interface that is indicative of the attempt to access the file, (Par. (0032-0033); receiving user input data (receiving login information) that is indicative of the attempt to access the file (after request for specific file the user would like to access, if login correct at user interface notification is given))
wherein the user input data is associated with the user account. (Par. (0033); user input data (login information) associated with user account (user profile))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch to incorporate the teaching of Kartoun to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing data files with various user accounts that contain private information, with the motivation of creating access control and levels of access to determine which users can be granted access and in return invite collaboration on data files. This prevents illegitimate access from users without permission to access files and based off of if users are eligible as well as provide input and login information then determining authentic users. (Kartoun Par. (0002-0003, 0011 and 0026))
In regards to Claim 13, the combination of Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch teach the method of claim 9, Kaidi further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the facilitating of the access to the file to the user account comprises: (Par. (0022); granting access to data files to user)), (Par. (0031); of the user account (users corresponding to accounts with organization and their digital files))
Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch do not explicitly teach making a notification of approval to access the file available to the user account.
Wherein Kartoun teaches making a notification of approval to access the file available to the user account. (Par. (0032-0033); file access request and notifying via user interface when correct login information is found with user profile)), (Par. (0036); grants access and notifies user access to file was granted))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch to incorporate the teaching of Kartoun to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing data files with various user accounts that contain private information, with the motivation of notifying approval access to allow administrators and other devices in the network a denial or granting of access and safeguards the integrity of the system and prevents illegitimate access to unauthorized users. (Kartoun Par. (0002-0003, 0033, and 0035))
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaidi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240176902, hereinafter referred to as “Kaidi"), Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449, hereinafter referred to as “Chugunov") Gavish et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220191251, hereinafter referred to as “Gavish") and Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168, hereinafter referred to as “Birch") further in view of Pan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240039742, hereinafter referred to as “Pan ")
In regards to Claim 11, the combination of Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch teach the method of claim 9, Kaidi further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the notifying of the security group of the attempt to access comprises: (Par. (0064); notifying at last one device associated with a security group, (data scanning module is notified of attempt access)), (Par. (0042-0043); one device, associated with a security group (data scanning module that is included in service provider server; service provider server 130 used to verify and authenticate users))
Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch do not explicitly teach sending respective notifications to respective user accounts that are members of the security group.
Wherein Pan teaches sending respective notifications to respective user accounts that are members of the security group. (Par. (0193-0194); broadcast an alert to blockchain network that bob 103 would like access)), (Par. (0106-0107 and 0114) to respective user accounts (Bob and Alice in blockchain with accounts and plurality of accounts on blockchain)), (Par. (0036); members of the security group (nodes in consensus blockchain that validate))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaidi, Chugunov, Gavish and Birch to incorporate the teaching of Pan to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing data files/ electronic documents with various user accounts that contain private information, with the motivation of implementing a blockchain ledger that is immutable and maintains private data of nodes and creating an alert system to allow nodes to be able to identify data and allow it to be broadcasting in the network. This in return creates awareness for nodes in blockchain to look up and maintain the data based on the alerts. (Pan Par. (0003-0005, 0012-0014, 0034 and 0088))
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449, hereinafter referred to as “Chugunov") further in view of Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168, hereinafter referred to as “Birch")
In regards to Claim 15, Chugunov teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, in response to execution, cause a system comprising at least one processor to perform operations, comprising: (Par. (0062-0063); non-transitory computer readable medium with processor))
based on an attempt to access a file that is associated with a user account, and based on determining that the file is sensitive according to a sensitivity criterion, (Par. (0031); attempted access to prohibited documents)), (Par. (0006-0007); files and documents with confidential information)), (Par. (0042); according to a sensitivity criterion, (confidentiality mark is read on document to determine whether to prohibit or permit access)), (Par. (0051); according to a sensitivity criterion, (documents containing types of confidential information is determined to see list of users permitted)), (Par. (0046); attempt to access a file that is associated with a user account ( check on account which attempt to open document was made))
notifying respective device, corresponding to a security group, of the attempt to access; (Par. (0031); notifying the one device (server component 104) of attempts made to obtain access of prohibited documents), (Par. (0027); security group (administrators, system administrators, and security officers associated with server component)), (Par. (0027) and (Figure 1 label 104, 132; one device associated with a security group (server component with administrator capabilities)), (Par. (0054); one device, associated with security group (server component verifying first user))
Chugunov does not explicitly teach after the notifying, receiving access approval data that is associated with at least one user account of the security group, wherein the access approval data is indicative of granting, to the user account, permission to access to the file; and based on the attempt to access the file, based on determining that the file is the sensitive file, and based on receiving the access approval data, permitting access to the file via the user account.
Wherein Birch teaches after the notifying, receiving access approval data that is associated with at least one user account of the security group, (Par. (0014 and 0020); after the notifying, receiving access approval data (notification indicating attempting access to network and data file and received response indicating authorized access of data file within designated period of time)), (Par. (0025-0026); receiving access approval data (response received from scheduling authority that authorizes the user access to data file outside of time period and designated access to data file for period of time)), (Figure 1 labels 300, 400, 500, 560, 356; that is associated with at least one of the at least one user account (computing platform with users and credentials) of the security group (third computing platform)), (Par. (0011); security group (third computing platform that verifies access schedule, inputs, times etc.)), (Par. (0006 and 0045); at least one of the at least one user account (users with credentials, username accounts etc.)) (Examiner note: In the instant application the specification defines on Par. (0073-0074) approval data the access approval data indicates an amount of time for which access to the file via the first user account is approved. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted in light of the specification that received approval data is a response message or data indicating a period of time the file is access by user))
wherein the access approval data is indicative of granting, to the user account, permission to access to the file; and (Par. (0020, 0025); receiving response and providing access to user) (Par. (0042); granting access to data file for specific period of time)), (Par. (0006 and 0045); the first user account (users with credentials, username accounts etc.))
based on the attempt to access the file, based on determining that the file is the sensitive file, and (Par. (0021); user attempting to access the data file), (Par. (0041-0042 and 0007); data file is secure application to prevent nefarious entities and wrongful possession and data file with time-sensitive with time periods for access to prevent wrongdoer))
based on receiving the access approval data, permitting access to the file via the user account. (Par. (0020 and 0025); based on response received; authorizing access to data file for designated period of time to user)), (Par. (0006 and 0045); the first user account (users with credentials, username accounts etc.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chugunov to incorporate the teaching of Birch to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing and transferring of data files with sensitive and private information, with the motivation of detecting incidents when attempting to login or access data files and creating a heighten level of security of sensitive applications by monitoring malicious actor with a time component and predefined level of time. (Birch Par. (0002-0003))
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449, hereinafter referred to as “Chugunov") and Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168, hereinafter referred to as “Birch") further in view of Gollogy et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210409192, hereinafter referred to as “Gollogy")
In regards to Claim 16, the combination of Chugunov and Birch do not explicitly teach wherein the access approval data indicates that each user account of the at least one user account of the security group approves of the granting.
Wherein Gollogy teaches wherein the access approval data indicates that each user account of the at least one user account of the security group approves of the granting. (Par. (0014-0015); access approval data (access level blocks) are queried and determined if allowing the user account access by consensus)), (Par. (0114); the access approval data indicates (access level blocks) that each user account (each plurality of nodes with user accounts) of the at least one user account of the security group (plurality of validating nodes)) approves of the granting (determined if a consensus is made to allow the user account access by each of the plurality of nodes)), (Par. (0013); each of the plurality of nodes with user accounts))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chugunov and Birch to incorporate the teaching of Gollogy to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing data files with various user accounts that contain private information, with the motivation of implementing a blockchain ledger that secures data and blockchain files with various nodes and allows the network to detect compromised nodes and only allowing access when a consensus is reached thus adding an enhanced layer of secure protection based on the determination of all consensus node or majority percentage voting on allowing access. (Gollogy Par. (0004-0006, 0015, 0062 and 0098))
In regards to Claim 17, the combination of Chugunov and Birch do not explicitly teach wherein the access approval data indicates that a number of user accounts of the at least one user account of the security group approves of the granting, wherein the number is determined to satisfy a threshold approval criterion, and wherein the number is greater than one.
Wherein Gollogy teaches wherein the access approval data indicates that a number of user accounts of the at least one user account of the security group approves of the granting, (Par. (0014-0015); access approval data (access level blocks) indicates that a number of user accounts (consensus number of users query and determine if allowing the user account access)), (Par. (0114); the access approval data indicates (access level blocks) indicates that a number of user accounts (each plurality of nodes with user accounts) of the at least one user account of the security group (plurality of validating nodes)) approves of the granting (determined if a consensus is made to allow the user account access by each of the plurality of nodes)), (Par. (0013); each of the plurality of nodes with user accounts))
wherein the number of user accounts is determined to satisfy a threshold approval criterion, and (Par. (0062); the number (a consensus of nodes) determined to satisfy a threshold approval criterion (is determined based on defined percentage of nodes voting on consensus)), (Par. (0114); number of user accounts (each plurality of nodes with user accounts)
wherein the number is greater than one. (Par. (0069); the number (consensus of nodes) is greater than one (consensus response by the nodes with plurality of tickets returned)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chugunov and Birch to incorporate the teaching of Gollogy to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing data files with various user accounts that contain private information, with the motivation of implementing a blockchain ledger that secures data and blockchain files with various nodes and allows the network to detect compromised nodes and only allowing access when a consensus is reached thus adding an enhanced layer of secure protection based on the determination of all consensus node or threshold approval of percentage associated with voting in between nodes only then can access be allowed. (Gollogy Par. (0004-0006, 0015, 0062 and 0098))
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449, hereinafter referred to as “Chugunov") and Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168, hereinafter referred to as “Birch") further in view of Mackenzie et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210294913, hereinafter referred to as “Mackenzie ")
In regards to Claim 18, the combination of Chugunov and Birch teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, Chugunov further teaches wherein the user account is a first user account, and wherein the operations further comprise: Par. (0046); account of user in which document was attempted to be open), (Par.(0051) list of users with user accounts attempting to received document/file))
Chugunov and Birch do not explicitly teach denying access to the file to a second user account independently of whether the second user account is approved by the security group to access the file, wherein the second user account lacks credentials for access of the file.
Wherein Mackenzie teaches denying access to the file to a second user account independently of whether the second user account is approved by the security group to access the file, (Par. (0068 and 0072); denying access to the file to a second user account (rejection of vendor query for accessing documents) by security group (node computing entity of distributed ledger with consensus process determining query of vendor)), (Par. (0009 and 0055); independently of whether the second user account is approved by the security group to access the file (verifying vendor credentials if not matched a denied access by not permitting this is independent of vendor and verification corresponding to transaction that is rejected)), (Par. (0006 and 0095); second user account (one or more vendors and vendor with account)), (Examiner Note: In the instant application the specification does not have a defined or further explained process in which a second user is denied access independently, this step is only stated in Par. (00107). Therefor in light of the specification it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted that “independently of whether the second user account is approved” is referring to a denying of access that is one credential verification that is independent of another verification step that approves access to a file.)
wherein the second user account lacks credentials for access of the file. (Par. (0072); credentials are lacking and rejection of vendor accessing documents)), (Par. (0006 and 0095); second user account (one or more vendors and vendor with account))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chugunov and Birch to incorporate the teaching of Mackenzie to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of accessing data files with private information based on user credentials and information, with the motivation of utilizing credentials to regulate access on files/documents as a way of controlling access and used as a form of matching and comparison to permit access as well as reject access to unauthorized nodes. (Mackenzie Par. (0006-0008 and 0072))
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449, hereinafter referred to as “Chugunov") and Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168, hereinafter referred to as “Birch") further in view of Patel et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210019442, hereinafter referred to as “Patel")
In regards to Claim 19, the combination of Chugunov and Birch do not explicitly teach wherein the marking of the file in as the sensitive file is performed via a call of an application programming interface.
Wherein Patel teaches wherein the marking of the file in as the sensitive file is performed via a call of an application programming interface. (Par. (0013-0014); sensitive data in work file is tagged as sensitive by API))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chugunov and Birch to incorporate the teaching of Patel to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of sensitive information of data files, with the motivation of utilizing API calls with sensitive information to prevent entities and internet services from collecting potentially sensitive data and putting their private information in the wrong hands by using API calls sensitive data can be identified, tagged and thus making information more securely protected. (Patel Par. (0002-0005 and 0027))
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449, hereinafter referred to as “Chugunov"), Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168, hereinafter referred to as “Birch") and Patel et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210019442, hereinafter referred to as “Patel") further in view of Mehta et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230195926, hereinafter referred to as “Mehta")
In regards to Claim 20, the combination of Chugunov, Birch and Patel do not explicitly teach wherein the application programming interface comprises a representational state transfer application programming interface.
Wherein Mehta teaches wherein the application programming interface comprises a representational state transfer application programming interface. (Par. (0295); API response with representation state transfer)), (Par. (0191); flagging of sensitive/confidential files and data objects))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chugunov, Birch and Patel to incorporate the teaching of Mehta to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of sensitive information of data files, with the motivation of utilizing API calls with sensitive information to ensure privacy and private information is not revealed and prevents sharing of data by using API users can be more interactive query and be presented responses with detailed reports and data regarding files. (Mehta Par. (0005-0006, 0123, and 0295))
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chugunov et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188449, hereinafter referred to as “Chugunov") and Birch et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220292168, hereinafter referred to as “Birch") further in view of Gavish et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220191251, hereinafter referred to as “Gavish")
In regards to Claim 21, the combination of Chugunov and Birch do not explicitly teach associating the file with first metadata that comprises a first indication that the file is sensitive; and associating the file with second metadata that comprises a second indication of user accounts permitted to access the file.
Wherein Gavish teaches associating the file with first metadata that comprises a first indication that the file is sensitive; and (Par. (0076-0077); first metadata (conditions) that the shared file is sensitive (confidential))
associating the file with second metadata that comprises a second indication of user accounts permitted to access the file. (Par. (0083-0085); second metadata (workflow conditions) a second indication of user accounts permitted to access the file (workflow conditions corresponding to permitted users and field that includes permitted user for a particular file)), (Par. (0116-0117); metadata with file that shows sharing privileges associated with the file and users that are permitted.)), (Par. (0052); second metadata (metadata that includes users attempting access and privileges associated.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chugunov and Birch to incorporate the teaching of Gavish to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of access control for sensitive files, with the motivation of enforcing access policies to enhance security and prevent risk on sharing files with unauthorized activities by sending notifications to accounts access and security policies can specify file sharing more effectively. (Gavish Par. (0002-0005 and 0070))
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grabois; Dani (U.S Pub. No. 20200167491) “DATA PROTECTION AND THREAT DETECTION”. Considered this reference because it addressed attempted access on data files based on time and alerting users when access has been attempted.
VIJAYVARGIYA; SHIRISH (U.S Pub. No. 20200356686) “ADAPTIVE FILE ACCESS AUTHORIZATION USING PROCESS ACCESS PATTERNS”. Considered this application because it relates to access, transfer and sensitive information of data files.
KHINVASARA; Avi (U.S Pub. No. 20200364179) “FAST RECALL OF LARGE ARCHIVED FILES”. Considered this application because it addressed data files and confidential data with flags with attempted access and controls based on credentials.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. 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 https://ppair-y.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/H.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2497
/ELENI A SHIFERAW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights