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 .
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: “an enterprise Mobile Device Management (MDM) control system configured to”, “auditor configured to”, “validation logic configured to”, “remediator configured to” in claim 1.
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.
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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-24, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein et al. (US 2019/0342336) hereafter Finkelstein in view of RBAC-SC: Role-based Access Control Using Smart Contract by Cruz et al. hereafter Cruz and further in view of Hubbard et al. (US 2017/0013047) hereafter Hubbard.
21. Finkelstein discloses a system comprising:
a control system configured to selectively control actions on and access to personal information by a web browser based on a combination of signals from a plurality of authorization control modules (para 44; figs 1 and 2 and corresponding text);
an auditor configured to retrieve website personal information and privacy settings in response to a signal indicating navigation to the website by the web browser (para 27; fig 2, 202-204 and corresponding text);
validation logic configured to:
(a) perform a first comparison of the website personal information by the auditor against first blockchain records (fig 2, 206-208 and corresponding text);
(b) generate a first alert on condition that the first comparison indicates a first incongruity (fig 2, 208 and corresponding text);
(c) perform a second comparison of website privacy settings website second blockchain records encoding personal privacy settings and enterprise privacy settings (fig 2, 210 and corresponding text);
(d) generate a second alert on condition that the second comparison indicates a second incongruity (fig 2, 210 and corresponding text);
(e) perform a third comparison of the website privacy settings against third blockchain records encoding personal privacy regulations and enterprise privacy regulations for a jurisdiction (fig 2, 212 and corresponding text);
(f) generate a third alert on condition that the third comparison indicates a third incongruity (fig 2, 212 and corresponding text);
(g) harmonize and prioritize control settings for the personal information based on the first comparison, the second comparison, and the third comparison (fig 1, 120, combined control signal is harmonized from multiple sources and prioritized control settings);
a remediator configured to generate an ameliorative action for the personal information on the website response to one or more of the first alert, the second alert, and the third alert (fig 2, 214 and corresponding text; para 50).
Finkelstein does not explicitly disclose (h) constrain actions on the personal information based on fourth blockchain records comprising enterprise role policies encoded as digital contract entitlements. However, in an analogous art, Cruz discloses role-based access control using smart contract including constrain actions on the personal information based on fourth blockchain records comprising enterprise role policies encoded as digital contract entitlements (page 12244, section IV). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Finkelstein with the implementation of Cruz in order to allow for a trans-organizational RBAC and verify user-role assignments in a secure manner (page 12244, section IV, overview).
Finkelstein and Cruz do not disclose an enterprise Mobile Device Management (MDM). However, in an analogous art, Hubbard discloses electronic data distribution including mobile device management (para 61-63). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Finkelstein and Cruz with the implementation of Hubbard in order to secure, monitor, manage and enforce policies on employee’s mobile devices (para 61-63).
22. Finkelstein, Cruz, and Hubbard disclose the system of claim 21, wherein at least some of the authorization control modules are associated with particular partitions of one or more mobile computing devices (Finkelstein, para 15-22).
23. Finkelstein, Cruz, and Hubbard disclose the system of claim 21, wherein the fourth blockchain records further comprise jurisdiction-specific digital contract entitlements (Finkelstein, para 31, 47).
24. Finkelstein, Cruz, and Hubbard disclose the system of claim 21, wherein the constrained actions comprise sales, licensing, and sharing actions on the personal information (Finkelstein, para 39-41, 51, 53-54).
25. Finkelstein, Cruiz, and Hubbard disclose the system of claim 21, wherein the auditor is further configured to: harmonize and prioritize the control settings for the personal information based on a device-monitor-determined role of a person operating the web browser (Cruz, page 12244, section IV).
27. Finkelstein, Cruz, and Hubbard disclose the he system of claim 21, wherein the auditor is implemented as an artificial intelligence bot agent (Hubbard, para 46).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R TURCHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7-3.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
/JAMES R TURCHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439