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 .
Claims 1-20 as submitted on 11/19/24 were examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 11/19/24 is being considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-12, 14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al (US 2014/0325217) in view of Kozolchyk et al (US 2016/0352695).
Claims 1, 9, and 17:
As per claim 1, Mori discloses:
at a first device outside of a private network (paragraph 89 and Fig 1, database system 11; The database system is located outside of the private network which makes up user system 20):
receiving, from a second device in the private network, encrypted data (paragraph 82 and 101; Application response means 22 sends encrypted data to be stored in database system 11);
performing one or more operations based on the encrypted data, without decrypting the encrypted data (paragraphs 91, 93, 98, 102, 104, and 129-130; The database system can perform one or more operations on the stored encrypted data, some of which does not require decrypting the encrypted data, such as homomorphic encryption); and
transmitting a result of the one or more operations to the second device in the private network (paragraphs 102, 104, and 130; The result of the operation is sent from the database system to application response means 22, i.e. the claimed second device).
While Mori discloses use of metadata (paragraph 112), Mori does not explicitly disclose that metadata associated with the encrypted data was received (i.e. in step 1 above) along with the encrypted data that the one or more operations performed (i.e. in step 2 above) was also based on metadata associated with the encrypted data.
However, these limitations were disclosed by Kozolchyk (paragraphs 20, 25, 27, and 29). In these cited section, various types of metadata associated with the encrypted data are disclosed. One type is a prefix string discussed in paragraph 25 which indicates whether data should be treated as secure or not, where the metadata can be associated with encrypted data. Another is a token which further contain other metadata such as user id, transaction id, random strings, etc., which can be used to access the data (or just part of the data) or act as a look-up index for the data (paragraphs 20 and 27). Metadata can also take the form of a time to live (TTL) value which sets an expiration date for the data, after which the data is deleted.
Before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mori’s invention using Kozolchyk’s teachings discussed above to achieve an invention as recited in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kozolchyk’s teachings of how to utilize metadata with the encrypted data because it would allow for more flexible processing of both encrypted and non-encrypted data by Mori’s invention, allowing for such things as quick identification of secure or non-secure data, more flexible access of the data or part of the data, or being able to automatically set a life span associated with the data, regardless if it was encrypted or not (Kozolchyk: paragraphs 20, 25, and 29).
The rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 9 and 17.
Claims 2, 10, and 18:
As per claim 2, Mori further discloses wherein the second device comprises a gateway device (paragraph 88 and Fig 1; A shared application response means 22 acts as a gateway for data transferred between database system 10 and a plurality of user systems 20).
The rejection of claim 2 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 10 and 18.
Claims 3, 11, and 19:
As per claim 3, Mori further discloses wherein the first device comprises a server device disposed within an external service provider network (paragraph 88 and Fig 1; Database system 11, i.e. the claimed first device, runs requested database operations and sends/serves the data back to application response means 22. Note that database system 11 is located in an external service provider network as it is not in the same network(s) as the one or more user system(s) 20).
The rejection of claim 3 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 11 and 19.
Claims 4, 12, and 20:
As per claim 4, Kozolchyk further discloses wherein the encrypted data represents sensitive information, wherein the metadata is configured to indicate one or more properties of the sensitive information, and wherein the one or more operations are performed based at least in part on the one or more properties indicated by the metadata (paragraph 25, 102, 104, and 106; Prefix attached to data indicates if it is sensitive data or not, which is used to determine if the data is encrypted or not. Further, depending on the operation requested, this could also affect things such as if decryption is needed or not as part of the operation).
The rejection of claim 4 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 12 and 20.
Claims 6 and 14:
As per claim 6, Mori further discloses wherein the one or more operations comprise a management function, wherein the management function is associated with a database management, a configuration management, an information management, or any combination thereof (paragraphs 144, 212, 220-225, 240, and 311).
The rejection of claim 6 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 14.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al (US 2014/0325217) in view of Kozolchyk et al (US 2016/0352695) in view of Morris et al (US 2014/0325217).
Claims 5 and 13:
As per claim 5, Mori and Kozolchyk do not explicitly disclose, but Morris discloses wherein the one or more properties indicated by the metadata are determined based at least in part on a memory map associating a property of the sensitive information to a portion of the metadata (paragraphs 45-46, 55, and 125).
Before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mori and Kozolchyk’s combination invention in accordance with Morris’s teachings. The rationale for why it would be obvious is that doing so is nothing more than simple substitution of one known element (i.e. method/system for managing metadata in databases as taught by Mori and Kozolchyk) for another (i.e. different method/system for managing metadata in databases which makes use of memory maps) to achieve predictable results, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
The rejection of claim 5 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 13.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al (US 2014/0325217) in view of Kozolchyk et al (US 2016/0352695) in view of Borthakur et al (US 2018/0324198).
Claims 7 and 15:
Mori further discloses wherein he first device implements a database, and wherein the one or more operations comprise a database query directed to the database (paragraphs 99-100 and 102).
Mori does not disclose, but Borthakur discloses the database is a configuration management database (CMDB) and the database query is directed to the CMDB (paragraphs 37-39, 62, and 78).
Before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mori and Kozolchyk’s combination invention in accordance with Borthakur’s teachings discussed. The rationale for why it would be obvious is that doing so is nothing more than simple substitution of one known element (i.e. generic database) for another (i.e. CMDB) to achieve predictable results, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
The rejection of claim 7 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 15.
Claims 8 and 16:
Mori further discloses wherein the first device implements a software that generates a user interface (UI), and wherein the one or more operations comprise a UI operation directed to the UI (paragraphs 87, 93, 100, 183, 212).
Mori does not disclose the software is a platform instance. However, Borthakur discloses software is a platform instance (paragraphs 61-62). Before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mori and Kozolchyk’s combination invention in accordance with Borthakur’s teachings discussed. The rationale for why it would be obvious is that doing so is nothing more than simple substitution of one known element (i.e. generic software) for another (i.e. platform instance as the specific type of software) to achieve predictable results, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
The rejection of claim 8 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PONNOREAY PICH whose telephone number is (571)272-7962. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST, 10am-6pm during Daylight Savings Time.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/PONNOREAY PICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights