DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a processing module... wherein the processing module is configured to execute the operational instructions to: maintain... receive... identify... identify... retrieve... identify... and compare...”in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case the Applicant’s specification describes the corresponding structure for the “processing module” in at least Paragraphs [0044] and [0126].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite methods and systems for managing and using information contained within access control lists.
The limitations in Independent Claims 1, 10 and 19 of identifying and comparing information within access control lists, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations of “identifying a request type of the storage network access request,” “identifying the one or more ACLs of a sub-registry associated with the request type,” “identifying an ACL, of the one or more ACLs, based on an identifier associated with the requesting entity” and “comparing the storage network access request to permissions of the identified ACL to determine whether the storage network access request is authorized,” as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements “maintaining a storage network access control list (ACL) registry, the ACL registry including a storage network sub-registry and one or more vault sub-registries, wherein each of the sub-registries includes one or more ACLs,” “receiving a storage network access request from a requesting entity” and “retrieving the one or more ACLs,” in Claims 1, 10 and 19, these limitations do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the “at least one interface,” “memory that stores operational instructions” and “a processing module operably coupled to the memory, wherein the processing module is configured to execute the operational instructions” elements of Claim 10, as well as the “at least one memory section that stores operational instructions” element of Claim 19, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements which recite the “maintaining a storage network access control list (ACL) registry,” “receiving a storage network access request from a requesting entity” and “retrieving the one or more ACLs,” of Claims 1, 10 and 19, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using well-known, routine and conventional generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the “maintaining a storage network access control list (ACL) registry” step is an example of “Storing and retrieving information in memory”; and the “receiving a storage network access request...” and “retrieving the one or more ACLs” steps are examples of “receiving or transmitting data over a network”; which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, Claims 1, 10 and 19 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C.101.
With regard to the individual dependent claims:
Claims 2, 11 and 20 recite, “wherein the storage network sub-registry includes information for authorizing storage network access requests for one or more of: creating a vault; deleting a vault; creating a storage pool; deleting a storage pool; creating a realm; or deleting a realm.”
Claims 3 and 12 recite, “wherein a vault sub-registry of the one or more vault sub-registries includes information for authorizing vault level access requests for one or more of: a delete object request; an add object request; a modify object request; or a modify permissions request.”
Claims 5 and 14 recite, “wherein a storage pool sub-registry of the one or more storage pool sub-registries includes information for authorizing storage pool level access requests for modifying a storage pool.”
Claims 9 and 18 recite, “wherein an ACL includes one or more of: a realm universally unique identifier field; a login name field; a subject distinguished name field; a permissions field; a signer identification field; or a signature field.”
These limitations of Claims 2-3, 5, 9, 11-12, 14, 18 and 20 do nothing more than generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and they cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 4 and 13 recite, “wherein the ACL registry further includes one or more storage pool sub-registries, wherein each of the one or more storage pool sub-registries includes one or more ACLs.”
These limitations of Claims 4 and 13 recite further elements at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and they cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 6 and 15 recite, “wherein retrieving the one or more ACLs includes: retrieving at least a decode threshold number of encoded data slices corresponding to the one or more ACLs; and decoding the at least a decode threshold number of encoded data slices to produce the one or more ACLs.”
Claims 7 and 16 recite, “receiving a write request for storing a new data object” and “updating a vault sub-registry of the one or more vault sub-registries with updated ACL information regarding the new data object.”
Claims 8 and 17 recite, “wherein determining that the requesting entity is authorized to issue the write request for the new data object includes extracting a signed certificate from the write request and verifying the signed certificate to establish authorization to issue the write request for the new data object and to update the vault sub-registry with updated ACL information regarding the new data object.”
These limitations of Claims 6-8 and 15-17 do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the above limitations recite steps of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “storing and retrieving information in memory” which the courts have found to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claims 7 and 16 further recite, “determining a write authority of the requesting entity based on information contained in an ACL; determining that the requesting entity is authorized to issue the write request for the new data object based on the write authority of the requesting entity.”
These limitations of Claims 7 and 16, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out this function through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As such, for the reasons discussed above, dependent Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C.101.
Furthermore, Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a computer readable storage medium which covers a non-statutory embodiment.
The term "computer readable storage medium" has not been defined in the specification as, as the specification only discusses a “computer readable memory” and a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” i.e. in Paragraph [0133].
As such, the Applicant’s disclosure does not limit the claims to only encompassing statutory subject matter. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals- Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Therefore, applicant is advised to clarify the claimed definition of the term "computer readable storage medium".
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Swift et al. (“Improving the granularity of access control for windows 2000,” 2002) discusses the mechanisms in Windows 2000 that enable fine-grained and centrally managed access control for both operating system components and applications, including discussion regarding the implementation and improvements made to access control lists.
Bsaibes et al. (US patent 5,701,458) discloses a system and method for managing access control lists (ACL) in a data processing system with a hierarchical object structure which permits manipulation of an arbitrary set of ACLs and individual entries within an ACL.
Baptist et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0335030) discloses methods and systems associated with a dispersed storage network (DSN) which includes a distributed storage and/or task network (DSTN) module which creates and stores user profile information in the form of an access control list (ACL), wherein a user device ID and access type information are used with the ACL.
However, the above cited prior art does not teach a method or system for managing and using ACLs in the same manner as described by Applicant’s Independent Claims, particularly with regard to the limitations specifically pointed to above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J SIMONETTI whose telephone number is (571)270-7702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached on (571) 272-1077. 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.
/NICHOLAS J SIMONETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137 January 22, 2026