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 .
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 35 and 46 recite “the entitlement template”. Examiner believes these recitations should read “the data entitlement template”. Claim 52 recites “the customer”. Examiner believes this recitation should read “the customer system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the customer system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 34-38, 40-51, 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US Pub. 20190286828 A1) and further in view of Magalsky (US Pub. 20230281326 A1).
Anderson discloses the following subject matter:
34. A system comprising: one or more processors, coupled with memory, to:
obtain, (para. 26);
determine, based on a data entitlement template, that the endpoint device is entitled to access the data (para. 22);
generate, responsive to the determination the endpoint device is entitled to access the data, a first query of a first structure based on the data entitlement template (para. 26);
generate a second query of a second structure based on the first query, wherein the second query comprises a portion of the data (para. 26-28);
retrieve, using the second query generated based on the first query, a response from a system of record (para. 27);
Anderson does not specifically teach obtaining the request and transmitting the response to the endpoint device. However, in the related art of enforcing policies to access sensitive data, Magalsky teaches obtaining the request and transmitting the response to the endpoint device (see Fig. 5, para. 52). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this teaching of Magalsky with the disclosure of Anderson as a known way to provide filtered allowed data from a structured database in a cloud-based system.
35. The system of claim 34, wherein the one or more processors further: receive, from the endpoint device, a second request for second data; determine, based on the entitlement template, that the endpoint device is not entitled to access the second data; and deny the second request responsive to the determination that the endpoint device is not entitled to access the second data. (para. 33-34)
36. The system of claim 34, wherein the one or more processors further: import a system of record (SOR) schema model; generate the data entitlement template based on a partner system associated with the endpoint device, a customer associated with the data, and a location; and define a set of filters in the data entitlement template based on the SOR schema model. (para. 22-25)
37. The system of claim 36, wherein the set of filters includes one or more horizontal security filters. (Anderson- para. 28 (row), Magalsky- para. 47 (row filtering))
38. The system of claim 36, wherein the set of filters includes one or more vertical security filters. (Anderson- para. 28 (column), Magalsky- para. 47 (column filtering))
40. The system of claim 36, wherein the one or more processors further: filter, responsive to receipt of the response, the response based on the set of filters defined in the data entitlement template.(para. 26-27)
41. The system of claim 34, wherein the one or more processors further: define the data entitlement template based on at least two of: a customer associated with the data, a partner system associated with the endpoint device, or a location. (para. 22-25)
42. The system of claim 34, wherein the one or more processors further: provide, prior to the request being obtained, an access token to a partner system associated with the endpoint device. (Magalsky- para. 48- secure API policies)
43. The system of claim 34, wherein the first structure corresponds with an open data protocol (ODATA). (para. 26)
44. The system of claim 34, wherein the second structure corresponds to a structured query language (SQL). (para. 28)
Regarding claim 45, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated herein. A method, comprising: obtaining, by one or more processors coupled with memory, from a first entity, a request for data (para. 26); determining, by the one or more processors, that an entitlement is defined for the first entity in a data entitlement template (para. 22); generating, by the one or more processors, responsive to determining that the entitlement is defined for the first entity, a first query of a first structure based on the data entitlement template (para. 26); generating, by the one or more processors, a second query of a second structure based on the first query, wherein the second query comprises at least part of the data (para. 26-28); requesting, by the one or more processors, using the second query, a response from a system of record containing the data (para. 26-28); and forwarding, by the one or more processors, the response to the first entity.
Anderson does not specifically teach obtaining the request and transmitting the response to a first entity. However, in the related art of enforcing policies to access sensitive data, Magalsky teaches obtaining the request and transmitting the response to t to a first entity (see Fig. 5, para. 52). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this teaching of Magalsky with the disclosure of Anderson as a known way to provide filtered allowed data from a structured database in a cloud-based system.
46. The method of claim 45, further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, from the first entity, a second request for second data; determining, by the one or more processors, based on the entitlement template, that the first entity is not entitled to access the second data; and denying, by the one or more processors, the second request responsive to the determination that the first entity is not entitled to access the second data. (para. 33-34)
47. The method of claim 45, further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, a schema model; generating, by the one or more processors, the data entitlement template based on the first entity and a second entity associated with the data; and defining, by the one or more processors, a set of filters in the data entitlement template based on the schema model. (para. 22-25)
48. The method of claim 47, wherein the set of filters includes one or more horizontal security filters or one or more vertical security filters. (Anderson- para. 28 (row, column), Magalsky- para. 47 (row and column filtering))
49. The method of claim 47, further comprising: filtering, by the one or more processors, the response based on the set of filters defined in the data entitlement template. .(para. 26-27)
50. The method of claim 45, wherein the data entitlement template is based on a second entity associated with the data, the first entity, and a location. (para. 22-25)
Regarding claim 51, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated herein. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: obtain, from (para. 26); determine that the endpoint device is authorized (para. 22); generate, responsive to determining that the endpoint device is authorized, a first query of a first structure based on a data entitlement template (para. 26); generate a second query of a second structure based on the first query, wherein the second query comprises at least part of the data (para. 26-28); transmit the second query to a system of record (para. 26-28); receive, responsive to transmitting the second query, a response from the system of record (para. 26-28).
Anderson does not specifically teach obtaining the request and transmitting the response to the endpoint device. However, in the related art of enforcing policies to access sensitive data, Magalsky teaches obtaining the request and transmitting the response to the endpoint device (see Fig. 5, para. 52). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this teaching of Magalsky with the disclosure of Anderson as a known way to provide filtered allowed data from a structured database in a cloud-based system.
53. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 52, wherein the instructions further include instructions to: responsive to receipt of the response, filter the response based on the set of filters. (para. 26-27)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 39 and 52 are 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 WILLIAM A CORUM JR whose telephone number is (303)297-4234. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM 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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. 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.
/WILLIAM A CORUM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights