DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 2026-06-16 has been entered and fully considered.
In light of applicant’s amendment, filed 2026-06-16, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 2026-06-16, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 (now claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 20-25) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Before specifically addressing the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner first notes that many of the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims, and that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims; See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis of an application is based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, not unclaimed embodiments that may fall within the scope; See MPEP § 2106.04(II). With this in mind, the Examiner responds to the merits of Applicant’s arguments infra.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s characterization oversimplifies the claims and that the claimed operations cannot be performed in the human mind, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant first describes a specific problem “Digital badges issued by third-party issuing authorities often contain sensitive information - such as detailed assessment scores, personally identifiable information, or classified project identifiers - that may be appropriate within a high-security domain but inappropriate for sharing with lower-security domains” that the claimed invention allegedly solves “by generating new cryptographic data structures tailored to each target security domain, where each derived structure contains only the data elements authorized for that domain’s security level”. The Examiner notes, however, that the claims do not recite nor necessarily result in either of the argued features that “cryptographic data structures [are] tailored to each target security domain” or “each derived structure contains only the data elements authorized for that domain’s security level” as necessary for the solution described. Since the structure to perform these features are not claimed, they do not impact the analysis of whether the claim can be performed in a human mind.
Regarding Applicant’s second argument that “the claimed operations cannot be performed in the human mind”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that although the claim recites a computer, it is merely use to perform a mental process. Moreso, although Applicant alleges that a “human cannot mentally generate cryptographic data structures, cannot mentally generate digital badges, and cannot mentally transmit data structures across security boundaries between security domains” – this is clearly false. Practitioners of cryptography routinely generate cryptographic data structures (e.g. Caesar’s cipher – which existed well before computers). Similarly, the abstractly claimed “digital badge” encompasses any “digital representation of [a user’s] qualifications and achievements” (Specification [0003]). The “digital representation” of a digital badge such as a user ranking is also trivial to perform in a human mind (e.g. the digital representation of rank of 1 in binary is 1). Lastly, “transmit data structures across security boundaries between security domains” is so vague and nebulous as to engulf entire fields of human thought and activity – mail inspection, e-mail inspection, penetration testing, etc. Further, even though a computer is recited as performing the mental process, that is insufficient to avoid a finding of being directed to a mental process; See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims address a problem rooted in computer technology, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant points to the Specification noting that “digital badges are prevented from being shared across domains due to containing sensitive data that is not intended for public release”; however, nothing in the claims even acknowledge the existence of sensitive data in the badges, nor is there anything in the claim that prevents public exposure of such sensitive data. Although such an embodiment as described in the specification may fall within the vast scope of the claim, the claim is not limited to embodiments that protect sensitive data. Finally, while it may be true that “mail inspection does not involve generating separate cryptographic data structures with selectively included data elements”, the claims don’t perform this function either. The §101 analysis is based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, not a specific, unclaimed embodiment recited in the specification.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific implementation, not merely the idea of a solution; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that the claims “recite a specific technical solution: generating distinct cryptographic data structures comprising digital badges configured to be shared and displayed as credentials for different security domains, each containing only the data elements authorized for that domain’s security level, and transmitting those structures across security boundaries”; however, the Examiner notes that the feature of digital badges “each containing only the data elements authorized for that domain’s security level” is neither claimed nor necessarily resultant from the broadly claimed invention. Applicant points to USPTO’s examples 41 & 42, and again relates unclaimed subject matter to these examples. However, these would have to be equated to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims to have merit.
Based on the above, the Examiner notes that although patent-eligible embodiments may exist in the specification, Applicant has not limited the claims to these embodiments, and it is only the positively recited elements of the claim that are used in the claim analysis; See MPEP § 2106.04. Thus, the Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection is proper.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 2026-06-16, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 (now claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 20-25) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Before specifically addressing the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner again notes that many of the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims, and that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims; See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With this in mind, the Examiner responds to the merits of Applicant’s arguments infra.
In response to applicant’s argument that Redlich fails to disclose “a first security domain cryptographic data structure comprising a digital badge configured to be shared and displayed as a credential that indicates a qualification of the user relating to the action”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant primarily argues that “Redlich’s signed classified documents are not digital badges - they do not represent a user’s qualifications, they do not contain embedded metadata about an issuing organization, and they are not configured to be shared and displayed as credentials”; however, the Examiner notes that Applicant has not demonstrated how the claim language necessarily differentiates from these disclosures Redlich. First, the claims do not require the badge to “represent a user’s qualifications”, they only require it to “be displayed as a credential”. With respect to Redlich, generating a signature and classification rating of a user’s document (e.g. top-secret) each demonstrates not only the completion of an action, but also the competency or qualification (such as in dependent claim 6) of a user in drafting work product at a particular level and in affixing a digital signature. Note that the claims provide no limitation whatsoever on the types of user-performed action or credential. Thus, the Examiner respectfully submits that the species of digital signature and security classification of a created word document meets the generically claimed cryptographic data structure that can be displayed (hint: all digital data can be displayed).
In response to applicant’s argument that Redlich fails to disclose “generate a second security domain cryptographic data structure”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that the “claimed invention does not reassemble fragments of an existing object; it derives and generates a new cryptographic data structure containing only the data elements authorized for the target security domain”. The Examiner notes that there are two deficiencies with this argument. First, the Examiner notes that nothing in the claim requires “a new cryptographic data structure containing only the data elements authorized for the target security domain”, i.e. nothing in the claim removes non-authorized data elements or requires the data structure to be “new”. Second, Redlich anticipates the argued (but non-claimed) feature, as applicant has provided no evidence as to how creating a new cryptographic data structure containing only the data elements authorized for the target security domain differs from the argued interpretation of reassembling fragments of an existing object into a new object that does not have the objects that fail to meet the security level.
In response to applicant’s argument that Redlich fails to disclose “competency of the user in a particular area of expertise” as recited in dependent claim 5, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, applicant argues that “[c]ompetency in a particular area of expertise refers to a domain-specific capability - for example, qualification to perform a specific role-bound action” and that “a user holding a TS clearance is not, by virtue of that clearance, competent in any particular area of expertise”. The Examiner respectfully submits, however, that the federal government only grants security clearance to those individuals who are qualified to fill a particular role that requires a “need-to-know” and that has unquestionable loyalty to the nation. That is, a user granted “top-secret” clearance has both demonstrated qualification to work in a particular role (as the government will not consider or undertake a clearance check for those unqualified for a role), and has demonstrated competency in the area of expertise of not divulging sensitive information. The Examiner notes that the claims, again, provide no limitation whatsoever on the “particular area of expertise”, the corresponding action, or how the action “relates” to the competency.
In response to applicant’s argument that Redlich fails to disclose a sequential two-structure generation as recited in dependent claim 20, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, applicant argues that Redlich’s reconstruction is recovery of an existing object from its dispersed pieces, whereas the claim 20 “requires generating a new derived structure”. The Examiner notes, however, that the claims do not require that the generation of the derived structure be “new”. That is, the broadest reasonable interpretation of generating “the second security domain cryptographic data structure” encompasses reconstruction or recovery – it’s still “generated”, as – again – the claims provide no limitation whatsoever as to how the data structure is generated.
Based on the above, the Examiner notes that without limitation constraining the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, applicant’s reliance on unclaimed subject matter does not distinguish the claimed invention from Redlich. Thus, the Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection is proper.
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 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. The claims recite transmitting data to another security domain based on a determination that the data may be shared, which is a form of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, which is a concept performed in the human mind and thus grouped as Mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the courts.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra:
The following are Principles of Law:
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts.
The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of transmitting data to another security domain based on a determination that the data may be shared, which is a form of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, which is a concept performed in the human mind and thus grouped as Mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application?
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as:
(1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals)
(3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b)
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c)
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Examiner notes that clam features of: transmitting data to another security domain based on a determination that the data may be shared do not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Instead of a practical application, the claim features of transmitting data to another security domain based on a determination that the data may be shared merely use a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept?
The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than generic computer implementation or can be performed entirely by a human. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure (e.g. processor and memory) that serves to perform generic computer functions (e.g. receiving information, generating a data structure, determining something, generating another data structure, transmitting data, ...) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The claimed first security domain, information, user identifier, action identifier, data elements, first data element, second data element, first security domain cryptographic data structure, qualification, security boundary, second security domain, second security data structure are all numbers, data structures, or datum. Each of these elements are individually dispositive of patent eligibility because of the following legal holdings:
“Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court has also explained that “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e., an abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, the claims are merely directed towards transmitting data to another security domain based on a determination that the data may be shared, which is similar to ideas that the courts have found to be abstract, as noted supra, and the claims are without a “practical application” or anything “significantly more”.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process does no more than require a generic computer to perform a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity at a high level of generality. For example, receiving and transmitting data is even more generic than merely receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, generating data structures encompasses a form of storing and retrieving information in memory, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Further, determination processing of a binary decision is a generic form of performing repetitive calculations, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Further note that the abstract idea of transmitting data to another security domain based on a determination that the data may be shared to which the claimed invention is directed has a prior art basis outside of a computing environment, e.g. mail inspection.
The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the steps of using generic computer components. The claims do not purport, for example, to improve the functioning of the computer system itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. This is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
The dependent claims likewise incorporate the deficiencies of a claim upon which they ultimately depend and are also directed to non-patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Redlich et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20050138110-A1, hereinafter “Redlich”).
With respect to independent claim 1, Redlich discloses a system for managing cryptographic data structures across a plurality of security domains, the system comprising:
a processing unit comprising one or more processors {para. 0125: “any general purpose computer”}.
a memory unit storing computer-readable instructions {para. 0125: a “computer medium which may be used to hold or contain the computer program product”}, wherein the system is configured to:
receive, within a first security domain, information indicating a user performed an action {paras. 0138, 0196, 0317-0319, 0345-0348, and 0394: “the plaintext or the source document (data object) is created; (b) when the source document or data object is saved”}, wherein the information comprises: a user identifier configured to identify the user {paras. 0226, 0232, 0363-0370, 0408, and 0413-0414: “security systems identified each file with: owner”}, an action identifier configured to identify the action {paras. 0015, 0138, 0196, 0212, 0317-0319, 0345-0348, 0363-0370, and 0394: created files have “file names” and other “attributes”}, and a plurality of data elements relating to the action, the plurality of data elements comprising at least a first data element and a second data element {paras. 0129-0131: created files have “text, words, characters, icons or data objects”}, wherein the information indicating the user performed the action is received from an issuing authority {paras. 0228, 0320, and 0348: “process 803 detects and confirms the user's clearance level” and “the D&R file server 932 verifies that the originator 922a”}, wherein the issuing authority is an entity authorized to certify that the user completed the action {para. 0135: “initiating the security system” to perform the security}.
generate, within the first security domain, a first security domain cryptographic data structure comprising a digital badge configured to be shared and displayed as a credential {paras. 0310, 0321-0322, and 0334: “compartment tags” and/or “digitally signs and sends the document”, digital signatures can be shared and displayed to show work product or file creation} that indicates a qualification of the user relating to the action {paras. 0310, 0321-0322, and 0334: “verifies that the originator 922a, identified by the digital signature, has the authority”}, the first security domain cryptographic data structure comprising both the first data element and the second data element {paras. 0310, 0321-0322, and 0334: “Originator at 922a digitally signs and sends the document to the file server”}.
determine that at least the first data element can be shared across a security boundary with a second security domain, wherein the second security domain is at a different level of security than the first security domain {paras. 0205, 0216, 0297-0300, 0313-0317, and 0344: “identifying the communities of interest and the particular security level and security clearance for each community of interest” to determine if data objects may be disseminated}.
based on the determination, generate a second security domain cryptographic data structure comprising the first data element {paras. 0205-0208, 0258-0259, and 0304: “create the multiple encryption or ML document or data object” such that each “user must retrieve his or her cipher key to decode all or a portion of the ML encrypted document or data object”}.
transmit the second security domain cryptographic data structure across the security boundary to the second security domain {paras. 0205, 0216, 0297-0300, 0313-0317, and 0344: “peer to peer dissemination of data objects is quickly and readily available to all at the same or higher security levels”}.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Redlich discloses wherein the system is further configured to determine that the second data element is not authorized to be shared across the security boundary to the second security domain; and generating the second security domain cryptographic data structure comprises causing the second security domain cryptographic data structure to comprise the first data element but to omit the second data element {para. 0198 and 0208-0215: “multiple filters may be useful in the operation of the system with a plurality of security levels. Each filter could filter out different levels of security sensitive items and each bundle or group of security sensitive items (from each distinct filter) could be stored at different computer storage locations”}.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Redlich discloses wherein the plurality of data elements are records within at least one database, wherein the records are grouped together based on having matching key values associated with, at least one of, the user identifier and the action identifier {paras. 0317 and 0405: “document creators tag their documents, sign them digitally, and post them to a D&R file server 926, 932, which is actually a proxy using storage in the database servers 928,929, 930, 934, and others” – the databases are “relational databases”}.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Redlich discloses wherein determining that the first data element can be shared across the security boundary with the second security domain comprises comparing the first data element, or a field thereof, to a data structure containing a plurality of authorizations indicating types of data elements that can be shared within respective security domains {paras. 0135, 0198-0202, and 0226: “a plurality of filters would be created, each filter associated with a different security level” such as for “government security levels”}.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Redlich discloses wherein the action relates to a competency of the user in a particular area of expertise {para. 0228: “user 1, 2 or 3, each having a security clearance s1, s2 or s3, respectively”}.
With respect to dependent claim 7, Redlich discloses wherein the first security domain is isolated from the second security domain, and transmitting the second security domain cryptographic data structure across the security boundary to the second security domain comprises transmitting the second security domain cryptographic data structure to a cross-domain device that is configured to assess whether information can be shared between the first security domain and the second security domain {paras. 0303-0333: “Dispersion and Reassembly (D&R) server 926,932, (a MLS device connected to all networks), and database servers TS, S and U data servers (928, 929 and 930 in the upper domain and 934 in the lower domain) to support the D&R server's proxy document server functionality” to ensure the recipient will only be able to read to their clearance level}.
With respect to dependent claim 20, Redlich discloses wherein the system is further configured to:
generate, within the first security domain, the first security domain cryptographic data structure that indicates a qualification of the user relating to the action {paras. 0310, 0321-0322, and 0334: “verifies that the originator 922a, identified by the digital signature, has the authority”}, the first security domain cryptographic data structure comprising both the first data element and the second data element {paras. 0129-013, 0310, 0321-0322, and 0334: “Originator at 922a digitally signs and sends the document to the file server”, and the created files have “text, words, characters, icons or data objects”}.
after the first security domain cryptographic data structure is generated:
receive a prompt to generate the second security domain cryptographic data structure to be shared across the security boundary with the second security domain {paras. 0147 and 0228: “user, typically at a computer terminal, inputs a reconstruction request 120”}.
in response to the prompt, generate the second security domain cryptographic data structure {paras. 0205-0208, 0258-0259, and 0304: “create the multiple encryption or ML document or data object” such that each “user must retrieve his or her cipher key to decode all or a portion of the ML encrypted document or data object”}.
With respect to dependent claim 21, Redlich discloses wherein the system is further configured to determine that at least some of the plurality of data elements can be shared across a security boundary with a third security domain, wherein the third security domain is configured with a level of lower security than the second security domain, wherein a number of data elements that are shareable with the third security domain is less than a number of data elements that are shareable with the second security domain {paras. 0214, 0226, and 0344: “several filters are used, on one for each security level, whether hierarchical or orthogonal”}.
With respect to dependent claim 22, Redlich discloses wherein the third security domain indexes the cryptographic data structure on a public repository such that members of the public can access content of the cryptographic data structure {para. 0297: “security level SL1 is public or non-confidential information”}.
With respect to claims 10-14, 16, and 23-25, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier in this section with respect to claims 1-5, 7, and 20-22 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 10-14, 16, and 23-25; therefore, claims 10-14, 16, and 23-25 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claims 1-5, 7, and 20-22.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Bechtel whose telephone number is 571-270-5436. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 ET.
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, William (“Bill”) Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/Kevin Bechtel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights