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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This final action is responsive to amendment filed on 06/16/2026. In this amendment, claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1, 8 and 15 being independent.
Priority
This application is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/CN2023/098408, filed on June 05, 2023, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202210968873.6, filed on August 12, 2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Panikkar et al. (US 2023/0289250, filed Apr. 25, 2022).
As per claim 1, Panikkar discloses a data processing method (Panikkar Fig. 1 and 3), comprising:
obtaining, by a proxy service apparatus, first data of user equipment (Panikkar Fig. 1, Remote Devices 102-1 to 102-M at customer location; Panikkar par. 29, the usage data operating system 110 is installed on the remote device 102-1, which is used to collect usage data corresponding to one or other monitored resources (not explicitly shown) on the other remote devices 102);
saving, by the proxy service apparatus, the first data locally to a persistent storage device of the proxy service apparatus to obtain second data (Panikkar par. 43, the collection orchestrator 226 orchestrates usage data collected from each of the nodes or devices… The metadata and usage data (e.g., collected by system collectors 238) corresponding to the collection orchestrator 226 can be saved in a data store (e.g., associated with remote device 102-1) for further processing), wherein the second data comprises a copy of the first data in the persistent storage device (Panikkar par. 43, the collection orchestrator 226 orchestrates usage data collected from each of the nodes or devices… The metadata and usage data (e.g., collected by system collectors 238) corresponding to the collection orchestrator 226 can be saved in a data store (e.g., associated with remote device 102-1) for further processing);
displaying, by the proxy service apparatus, a user interface comprising an indication of the second data retrieved from the persistent storage device, for review by a user (Panikkar par. 69, a user can review all collected usage data and then approve portions of the usage data that are to be transmitted to the usage data service system 105); and
sending, after the displaying of the user interface to the user and by the proxy service apparatus, the second data when the proxy service apparatus determines that the second data satisfies a first forwarding rule (Panikkar par. 69, a user can review all collected usage data and then approve portions of the usage data that are to be transmitted to the usage data service system 105).
As per claim 3, Panikkar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first forwarding rule comprises:
the proxy service apparatus sends the second data in response to an instruction of the user (Panikkar par. 69, a user can review all collected usage data and then approve portions of the usage data that are to be transmitted to the usage data service system 105), wherein the instruction is configured to indicate that the user agrees to forward the second data (Panikkar par. 69, a user can review all collected usage data and then approve portions of the usage data that are to be transmitted to the usage data service system 105).
As per claim 5, Panikkar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the indication of the second data comprises at least one of performance information of the user equipment, a log of the user equipment (Panikkar Fig. 1, Remote Devices 102-1 to 102-M at customer location; Panikkar par. 29, the usage data operating system 110 is installed on the remote device 102-1, which is used to collect usage data corresponding to one or other monitored resources (not explicitly shown) on the other remote devices 102; Panikkar par. 49, The collection monitor 234 monitors system health pertaining to the collection of usage data (e.g., transactions, logs, retries, failures and/or upload statistics)), alarm information of the user equipment, version information of an operating system running on the user equipment, a time of sending the second data, or a target object to which the second data is sent.
As per claim 6, Panikkar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the proxy service apparatus is deployed on a virtual machine of the user equipment (Panikkar Fig. 1, Remote Devices 102-1 to 102-M at customer location; Panikkar par. 29, the usage data operating system 110 is installed on the remote device 102-1, which is used to collect usage data corresponding to one or other monitored resources (not explicitly shown) on the other remote devices 102; Panikkar par. 78, at least portions of the information processing system 100 can be implemented using one or more processing platforms. A given such processing platform comprises at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory. The processor and memory in some embodiments comprise respective processor and memory elements of a virtual machine or container provided using one or more underlying physical machines).
As per claim 7, Panikkar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the proxy service apparatus is deployed on a first device (Panikkar par. 29, the usage data operating system 110 is installed on the remote device 102-1, which is used to collect usage data corresponding to one or other monitored resources (not explicitly shown) on the other remote devices 102), and the first device and the user equipment are located in a same network (Panikkar Fig. 1, Remote Devices 102-1 to 102-M at customer location connecting to Network 104; Panikkar par. 18, The network 104 is assumed to comprise a portion of a global computer network such as the Internet, although other types of networks can be part of the computer network 100, including a wide area network (WAN), a local area network (LAN), a satellite network, a telephone or cable network, a cellular network, a wireless network such as a Wi-Fi or WiMAX network, or various portions or combinations of these and other types of networks).
Claims 8 and 10 do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1 and 3 respectively. As such, claims 8 and 10 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 and 3, respectively.
As per claim 12, Panikkar discloses the processor according to claim 8, wherein the indication of the second data further comprises at least one of a log of the user equipment (Panikkar Fig. 1, Remote Devices 102-1 to 102-M at customer location; Panikkar par. 29, the usage data operating system 110 is installed on the remote device 102-1, which is used to collect usage data corresponding to one or other monitored resources (not explicitly shown) on the other remote devices 102; Panikkar par. 49, The collection monitor 234 monitors system health pertaining to the collection of usage data (e.g., transactions, logs, retries, failures and/or upload statistics)), alarm information of the user equipment, version information of an operating system running on the user equipment, a time of sending the second data, or a target object to which the second data is sent.
Claims 13 and 14 do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 6 and 7 respectively. As such, claims 13 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 6 and 7, respectively.
Claims 15, 17, 19 and 20 do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 respectively. As such, claims 15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 3, 5 and 6, respectively.
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 of this title, 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 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panikkar et al. (US 2023/0289250, filed Apr. 25, 2022) and Alonzo et al. (US 2017/0337382, published Nov. 23, 2017).
As per claim 2, Panikkar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein after the saving, by the proxy service apparatus, the first data locally to obtain the second data (Panikkar par. 43, the collection orchestrator 226 orchestrates usage data collected from each of the nodes or devices… The metadata and usage data (e.g., collected by system collectors 238) corresponding to the collection orchestrator 226 can be saved in a data store (e.g., associated with remote device 102-1) for further processing), but does not explicitly disclose the method further comprises:
generating, by the proxy service apparatus, an operation log based on the second data, wherein the operation log is configured for the user to review the second data.
Alonzo teaches:
generating an operation log based on the data (Alonzo par. 3, The computer-implemented method also includes generating metadata for the input data), wherein the operation log is configured for the user to review the data (Alonzo Fig. 6, Identify a sensitivity level of the content of the transmission data using the metadata at 630, block the data transmission request at 650; Alonzo par. 60, Alternatively or in addition, the runtime environment 120 prompts the user to review the data transmission request and select whether to continue with the data transmission or to continue blocking the data transmission).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Panikkar with the teaching of Alonzo for generating, by the proxy service apparatus, an operation log based on the second data, wherein the operation log is configured for the user to review the second data. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it offers the advantage of identifying sensitivity level and type of the data.
Claim 9 does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. As such, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 16 does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. As such, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panikkar et al. (US 2023/0289250, filed Apr. 25, 2022) and Singh et al. (US 2007/0094394, published Apr. 26, 2007).
As per claim 4, Panikkar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein prior to the sending, by the proxy service apparatus, the second data (Panikkar par. 69, a user can review all collected usage data and then approve portions of the usage data that are to be transmitted to the usage data service system 105), but does not explicitly disclose the method further comprises:
obtaining, by the proxy service apparatus, a second forwarding rule, wherein the second forwarding rule is an updated first forwarding rule; and
sending, by the proxy service apparatus, the second data when the proxy service apparatus determines that the second data satisfies the second forwarding rule.
Singh teaches:
obtaining a second forwarding rule (Singh par. 60, If the policy or rule can be enforced locally, this can be done at block 518, in which case the packet may or may not be transmitted depending upon the particular rule or policy to be enforced), wherein the second forwarding rule is an updated first forwarding rule (Singh par. 44, Rules/policy database 310 and flag type database 312 may be updated to include the latest set of rules/policies and flags, respectively); and
sending the second data when the proxy service apparatus determines that the second data satisfies the second forwarding rule (Singh par. 60, If the policy or rule can be enforced locally, this can be done at block 518, in which case the packet may or may not be transmitted depending upon the particular rule or policy to be enforced).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Panikkar with the teaching of Singh for obtaining, by the proxy service apparatus, a second forwarding rule, wherein the second forwarding rule is an updated first forwarding rule; and sending, by the proxy service apparatus, the second data when the proxy service apparatus determines that the second data satisfies the second forwarding rule. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it offers the advantage of keeping the rule up-to-date to improve the effectiveness of the system.
Claim 11 does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. As such, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 18 does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. As such, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11960625 B2; Systems And Methods For Protecting Sensitive Data In User Online Activities
Embodiments relate generally to systems and methods for local data storage.
US 11625494 B2; Data Privacy Policy Based Network Resource Access Controls
The invention relates generally to data privacy, and more particularly to website and computer application data privacy.
US 20160218935 A1; User Interface And Dashboard For Holistic Data Transmission Throughout An Enterprise
Embodiments of the invention relate to network data communication and, more particularly, a user-interface and dashboard for managing holistic data transmission implemented across a plurality of servers/network devices within an enterprise.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANG DO whose telephone number is (571)270-7837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 5:00 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, RUPAL DHARIA can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/KHANG DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights