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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/ patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,645,408 in view of Lof; Henrik Tobias et al. US 20140310779 (hereinafter Lof).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,645,408. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,645,408 teaches all the limitations of the instant application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,645,408. Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,645,408 teaches all the limitations of the instant application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,645,408. Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,645,408 teaches all the limitations of the instant application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 11,645,408 does not teach; however, Lof discloses: the requested transformation is further based on compliance with the criterion for the use of the first dataset (Lof: para. 69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 11,645,408 with the teaching of Lof to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to ensure authorized use of system resources.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 11-13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GRUBE; GARY W. US 20110161679 (hereinafter Grube) in view of FATTAL MATAN BINYAMIN et al. WO 2018234980 (hereinafter Fattal).
As per claim 1, Grube teaches: A method comprising: receiving, by a processing system including a processor, a request from a requesting system to access a first dataset ( a processing module receiving a data retrieval request…The method continues with the processing module decoding the threshold number of encoded data slices (a first and a second dataset), wherein the request indicates second metadata of a second dataset (“The request may include one or more of a slice name(s), a requester ID, a command, an access policy update, a data object ID, a source name, a data type, a data size indicator, a priority indicator, a security indicator, and a performance indicator” Grube: para. 83 ) and a requested transformation based on the first dataset and the second dataset (“The slicer 79 transforms the encoded data segment 94 into EC data slices in accordance with the slicing parameter from the vault for this user and/or data segment” Grube: para. 83),
and
wherein first metadata of the first dataset indicates a criterion for use of the first dataset (The request may include a command, a user ID, a data object name, a data type, a data size, a priority indicator, a security indicator, a performance indicator, operational parameters, time delay to DS units information, and other metadata pertaining to the data object (e.g., use of the first dataset). Grube: para. 131);
Grube does not teach; however, Fattal discloses: generating, by the processing system, a first data block including the first metadata and a second data block including identification data for the requesting system, the second metadata, and an indication of compliance with the criterion for the use of the first dataset (the system records metadata associated with the request (e.g., a session identifier, the time of the request, and/or the network address from which the request was sent… and also records, in a log file, various parameters of the request, such as the name of the user who submitted the request, the client hostname, the time of the request, whether the request was approved (an indication of compliance with the criterion for the use of the first dataset), and, for an access request or authorization request, the name of the requested resource…(Fattal: page 8, lines 10-17) For example, upon the server identifying that the request originated from a particular user, the server may look up (e.g., in a database) supplementary information, pertaining to the user, that is not included in the request, and then record this supplementary information in the log. (For example, the server may look up, and then record, a full name of the user, contact information for the user, information pertaining to the user's previous requests, or the user's level of seniority…(Fattal: page 28, lines 2-7).
modifying, by the processing system, a cryptographically signed record to include the first data block and the second data (suggesting that the information in the first data block and second data block is typically signed (Fattal: page 21, lines 3-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Grube with the teachings of Fattal to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in a predictable manner to validate the detail of the access request.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Grube teaches: providing, by the processing system to the requesting system, access to the first dataset (Grube: fig. 11, block 120).
As per claim 11, this claim defines a device that corresponds to method of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Grube teaches: first metadata of the first dataset indicates a criterion for use of the first dataset
(The request may include a command, a user ID, a data object name, a data type, a data size, a priority indicator, a security indicator, a performance indicator, operational parameters, time delay to DS units information, and other metadata pertaining to the data object (e.g., use of the first dataset). Grube: para. 131);
wherein the generating the requested transformation is compliant with the criterion (Grube: fig.11, block 120).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Grube teaches: the operations further comprise receiving the first metadata of the first dataset, wherein the request is received from the requesting system (Grube: fig. 11).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Grube teaches:
receiving a compliance verification indicating the compliance (Grube: para.52).
As per claim 16, this claim defines a device that corresponds to method of claim 7 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 7.
As per claim 18, this claim defines a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising executable instructions that corresponds to method of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated herein. Grube teaches:
receiving the first metadata indicating a criterion for use of a first dataset, wherein the generating the requested transformation is compliant with the criterion (Grube. Fig. 11, blocks 110, 120 and para. 54).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grube in view of Fattal and further in view of Lof; Henrik Tobias et al. US 20140310779 (hereinafter Lof).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Grube and Fattal does not teach; however, Lof discloses: the requested transformation is further based on compliance with the criterion for the use of the first dataset (Lof: para. 69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Grube and Fattal with the teaching of Lof to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to ensure authorized use of system resources.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. The combination of Grube and Fattal does not teach; however, Lof discloses: receiving the first metadata associated with the first dataset (Lof: para. 69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Grube and Fattal with the teaching of Lof to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to ensure authorized use of system resources.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grube in view of Fattal and further in view of Darcy; Jerry US 20170169065 (hereinafter Darcy).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Grube and Fattal does not teach; however, Darcy discloses: verifying, by the processing system, a source of the first dataset, wherein the verifying the source includes validating identification data of the source, and wherein the first metadata indicates the identification data for the source (Darcy: para. 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Grube and Fattal with the teaching of Darcy to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to provide reliable data.
Claims 5, 6, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grube in view of Fattal and further in view of SEO; Young-Jun et al. US 20160099938 (hereinafter Seo).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Grube and Fattal does not teach; however, Seo discloses: verifying, by the processing system, the requesting system, wherein the verifying the requesting system includes validating the identification data of the requesting system. (Seo: para. 95).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein. The combination of Grube and Fattal does not teach; however, Seo discloses: the request indicates the identification data for the requesting system (Seo: para. 95).
As per claim 14, this claim defines a device that corresponds to method of claim 5 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 20, this claim defines a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising executable instructions that corresponds to method of claim 5 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 8-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grube in view of Fattal and further in view of Beringer, Joerg US 20040122696 (hereinafter Beringer).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Grube and Fattal does not teach; however, Beringer discloses: the processing system is configured to control access to datasets in a dataset exchange environment (the system provides a collaborative environment: Beringer: para. 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Grube and Fattal with the teaching of Beringer to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to enhance the utility of the system.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Grube and Fattal does not teach; however, Beringer discloses: the first metadata indicates an availability requirement of the first dataset, wherein the availability requirement indicates one or more criteria for use of the first dataset (Beringer: para. 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Grube and Fattal with the teaching of Beringer to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to create a secure access to system resources.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein. The combination of Grube and Fattal does not teach; however, Beringer discloses: receiving, by the processing system, a compliance alert indicating that the transformation based on the first dataset and the second dataset violates a privacy limitation of the availability requirement of the first dataset, wherein the privacy limitation indicates a level of privacy required by transformations based on, at least, the first dataset (Beringer: para. 29).
As per claim 17, this claim defines a device that corresponds to method of claims 9 and 10 and does not define beyond limitations of claims 9 and 10. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claims 9 and 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493