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 21-40 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled by a preliminary amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 January 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 27-35 are 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 27 line 7 “a first record”, line 12 “a second record” are unclear. How are they related to the synchronization event, the cloud-based server, the client computing device? Note the recited “synchronization event” seems to imply synchronization is being performed between the clous-based server and the client computing device. However, there seem to be no criteria for synchronization to occur. Furthermore “a first record not set to a first class” and “a second record set to a second class” are unclear. Note as written a record set to a second class would be removed while a record not set to the first class would be synchronized but a record not set to the first class does not exclude it from being set to the second class. Therefore it is unclear which action would be taken.
The remaining of the claim merely seems to be an IF THEN ELSE algorithm depending on the records.
The dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their parent claim.
Furthermore, claim 28 “the cloud-based server system” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 29 “wherein the client computing device or cloud based system…” is unclear. Note parent claim 27 merely recites “a cloud-based computer-implemented system comprising a cloud-based server and a client computing device”, not a cloud-based server system.
Art rejection is not being applied to claims 27-35 because the limitations cannot be ascertained.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 21 line 4 “when at one” contains a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of patent eligibility of claim 21:
Step 1: claim 21 recites a “method for...”; thus seems to be directed to a process
Step 2A Prong One: claim 21 recites the limitations:
detecting…classified by a user as a classified file
detecting …declared as a permanent record by the user;
Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mind or with pen and paper. The criteria of classified as a classified file or declared as a permanent record are mere attributes of any data file,. The recited detecting falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including observation, judgment, evaluation). Note the recited content management system, server system are no more than mere tools to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2A Prong Two: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of an application and a client computing recited at a high level of generality, is simply utilizing a generic computer and associated software as a tool to perform an abstract idea thus does not provide an inventive concept because the recited elements amount to mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, do not provide an inventive concept, do not improve any technology or technical field, do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, do not add specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, do not add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, do not include other meaningful limitations beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed “based on detecting of the classification…removing the classified file from a client computing system” and “based on detecting of the declaration…preventing editing by the client computing system of a file declared as a permanent record” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (iv). Note any data file has to be processed according to its classification attributes.
Claim 22 merely further describes the classification process, considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 23, 25 merely further describe the declaration process, considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 24 merely adds queueing permanent files, considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 26 merely further describes the server is cloud-based, considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 36-39 essentially recite limitations similar to claims 21-24 with a slight difference in wordings in form of non-transitory computer readable program product thus are not patent eligible for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim 40 merely adds one or more files are associated with an application to create, edit or manage records, considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Although the dependent claims are more detailed, none amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea recited in their parent claims. No claim is patent eligible.
Analysis of patent eligibility of claim 27:
Step 1: claim 27 recites a system comprising server and computing device thus seems to be directed to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One: claim 27 recites the limitations:
Detecting a synchronization event…client computing device
Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mind. The recited detecting falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including observation, judgment, evaluation). Note the recited cloud-based server and client computing device are no more than mere tools to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Step 2A Prong Two: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim merely recites the additional elements of a mathematical algorithm in the form of IF THEN ELSE scenario regarding records processing according to their respective classifications. The recited mathematical algorithm does not provide an inventive concept because it is merely a tool to process records in a client/server system, considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g),
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed system merely includes generic components of a cloud-based server and client computer devices that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, do not provide an inventive concept, do not improve any technology or technical field, do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, do not add specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, do not add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, do not include other meaningful limitations beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 27 is not patent eligible.
Claim 28 merely adds registering the client device, considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 29 merely adds an application to create, edit and/or manage records, considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 30 merely adds the user to set classifications, considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 31 merely adds the first records are managed by a first policy, considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 32 merely adds a content management system associated with the server and communicating over a network, considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 33 merely adds access control lists and API for setting permissions, considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 34 merely adds the role of an administrator,
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 35 merely adds queueing a record for transfer to client device, considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Although the dependent claims are more detailed, none amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea recited in their parent claims.
No claim is patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 25, 36-38, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al (US 20100186091 A1) provided by the applicant, in view of Wilson et al (AU 2014259536 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Turner substantially discloses a computer-implemented method for records management and classification of one or more files in a content management system having a server system that stores one or more files, the method comprising:
detecting, by an application, when at one or more of the files is classified by a user as a classified file (see at least Turner [0013] The invention's processes and methods to reliably obtain the full or complete classification determination for an electronic document as well as embedding and associating unique codes in the electronic shell of a document representing the complete classification determination, provides a reliable basis for further methods and processes of the invention to control document movement, access and storage of electronic documents within classified or sensitive computers, computer networks or domains of networks);
Turner does not specifically show:
based on the detecting of the classification of the one or more files, removing, by the application, the classified file from a client computing system;
detecting, by the application, when at least one of the one or more files is declared as a permanent record by the user; and
based on the detecting of the declaration as a permanent record, preventing, by the application, editing by the client computing system of a file declared as a permanent record.
However it is customary in the art to classify records as permanent as shown by Wilson and to process the records according to their attributes (see Wilson [222] In one example, individuals can save documents in a number of folders, with the folders having separate permissions, allowing the folders to be used for different purposes. For example, a folder that cannot be deleted or changed by the user can be used for securely storing important information, such as tax returns, associated receipts or the like. However, other folder configurations can be used. For example, shared document folders can be provided allowing multiple parties to sign and maintain a document (such as a contract), with all changes being recorded and noted. Wilson [223] Any documents stored can be time-stamped, ensuring that a permanent record is maintained as to the content of the document at the specified date, and in one example, folders and documents can be read only to thereby prevent the documents being subsequently altered after submission).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features while implementing the method of Turner in order to properly handle records according to their classification attributes.
Regarding claim 22, Turner/Wilson further teaches or suggests the method in accordance with claim 21, wherein the classification of the one or more files is done by the application on the client computing system remotely from the content management system (see Wilson [013] Typically the server processing system is configured to: receive, from the user processing system, authorisation data indicative of a third party authorised by the entity to read-only access at least a portion of the registry). Note the client computing system reads on the user processing system of Wilson.
Regarding claim 23, Turner/Wilson further teaches or suggests the method in accordance with claim 21, wherein the declaration of the one or more files as a permanent record is done by the application on the client computing system remotely from the content management system (see Wilson [013] Typically the server processing system is configured to: receive, from the user processing system, authorisation data indicative of a third party authorised by the entity to read-only access at least a portion of the registry). Note the client computing system reads on the user processing system of Wilson.
Regarding claim 25, Turner/Wilson further teaches or suggests the method in accordance with claim 21, wherein the declaration of the one or more files as a permanent record is made via an application being executed on a client computing system (see Wilson [013] Typically the server processing system is configured to: receive, from the user processing system, authorisation data indicative of a third party authorised by the entity to read-only access at least a portion of the registry). Note the client computing system reads on the user processing system of Wilson.
Claims 36-38 essentially recite limitations similar to claims 21-23 in form of computer program product thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claims 21-23 above.
Regarding claim 40, Turner/Wilson further teaches or suggests the non-transitory data storage medium in accordance with claim 36, wherein the one or more files are associated with an application configured for creating, editing, and/or managing a plurality of records (see Turner [[0008] The establishment of reliable security access controls for electronic documents/information based upon a document's or storage media's associated complete or full classification code(s), as well as similar unique classification regime code assignments to the security clearance level or access authority of users of the network; to elements of a computer operating system's file management system on a computer; to computers on a network; to networks and to domains of networks in real-time.). Note the limitations are recited in the alternatives.
Claim(s) 24, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al (US 20100186091 A1) provided by the applicant, in view of Wilson et al (AU 2014259536 A1), further in view of Christensen et al (US 8688823 B1).
Regarding claim 24, Turner/Wilson does not specifically show the method in accordance with claim 21, wherein the one or more files declared as a permanent record are queued by the server system for delivery to the client computing system.
However it is customary in the art as shown by Christensen to add data to a queue for subsequent delivery (see Christensen col.5 lines 25-31: Once the user originating the transaction has been uniquely identified, at 220 the Windows service 245 constructs a record of the TCP/IP connection details, data and time and originating user for the transaction and adds the user/connection binding data to a queue for subsequent delivery to the UAE 260 running within the remote packet monitor system 255).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features while implementing the method of Turner/Wilson in order to orderly process communications between server and clients.
Claim 39 essentially recite limitations similar to claim 24 in form of computer program product thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 24 above.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al (US 20100186091 A1) provided by the applicant, in view of Wilson et al (AU 2014259536 A1), further in view of Sinha (US 20120240183 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Turner/Wilson does not specifically show the method in accordance with claim 21, wherein the server system is a cloud-based server system.
However it is customary in the art to do so as shown by Sinha (see at least [0005]: a cloud network configured to perform mobile device security and policy enforcement includes a plurality of cloud nodes communicatively coupled to a network, each of the plurality of cloud nodes is configured to: communicate with a mobile device; and perform mobile device policy and security enforcement of the mobile device while concurrently providing access to the network.).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to include such feature while implementing the method of Turner/Wilson in order to benefit from the cloud-based security for mobile devices.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 22, 24 and 36, 37, 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12247577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are more obvious variations/combinations of each other as shown in the mapping below. Claims 21, 22, 24 are merely anticipated by claim 1 of the U.S. Patent. Claims 36, 37, 39 are merely anticipated by claim 17 of the U.S. Patent despite of a slight difference in wording for example the instant claims recite “detecting, by an application, when at one or more of the files is classified by a user as a classified file” while the Patent claims recite “ detecting the first item is declared as belonging to a first class in a database”. However the meanings are similar.
Claims of instant application
Claims of US Patent 12247577
c21. A computer-implemented method for records management and classification of one or more files in a content management system having a server system that stores one or more files, the method comprising: detecting, by an application, when at one or more of the files is classified by a user as a classified file; based on the detecting of the classification of the one or more files, removing, by the application, the classified file from a client computing system; detecting, by the application, when at least one of the one or more files is declared as a permanent record by the user; and based on the detecting of the declaration as a permanent record, preventing, by the application, editing by the client computing system of a file declared as a permanent record.
c22. The method in accordance with claim 21, wherein the classification of the one or more files is done by the application on the client computing system remotely from the content management system.
c 24. The method in accordance with claim 21, wherein the one or more files declared as a permanent record are queued by the server system for delivery to the client computing system.
c1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
removing a first item from a client computing system, in response to detecting the first item is declared as belonging to a first class in a database;
preventing editing of a second item by the client computing system, in response to detecting the second item is declared as belonging to a second class in the database,
a record declared as belonging to the first class or the second class by an application executed on the client computing system, the client computing system remotely connected, via a communications network, to a content management system associated with the database; and
queuing a third item for transfer to the client computing system over the communications network, in response to detecting a synchronization event initiated by the client computing system or a server computing system connected to the client computing system over the communications network.
As shown above, claims 21, 22, 24 are merely anticipated by claim 1 of the U.S. Patent. Claims 36, 37, 39 are merely anticipated by claim 17 of the U.S. Patent despite of a slight difference in wording for example the instant claims recite “detecting, by an application, when at (least) one or more of the files is classified by a user as a classified file” while the Patent claims recite “ detecting the first item is declared as belonging to a first class in a database”. However the meanings are similar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Bird et al (US 20090182747 A1) teach method and system for controlling access to data stored in a table of a database. The method includes marking the table of the database as being protected with fine-grained access control (FGAC), creating a system authorization class for the table of the database, the system authorization class having a default row authorization that prevents access to all rows in the table, the system authorization class being unmodifiable, creating a user authorization class for the table of the database, the user authorization class having a default row authorization that prevents access to all rows in the table, the user authorization class being modifiable, and associating the system authorization class and the user authorization class with the table of the database.
Weatherall et al (US 20160110374 A1) teach In-place records management can include in-place declaration of records in which a document within a document library or other first file structure associated with a content management system or application can be declared as a record such that records management controls are set for the document. The setting of the records management controls can include placing a record marker in the first file structure while the content object containing content and metadata of the document now designated as a record is relocated to a second file structure associated with a record management system or application. The record marker allows users of the content management system or application who had access to the document prior to its designation as a record to be able to access the corresponding record from within the content management system or application. Additional features can include dynamic record declaration and dynamic record handling.
Laverdiere et al (US 20130086693 A1) teach subject matter relates to a device for digital rights management. The device includes a classification module that assigns a classification tag to a document. The classification tag is selected from a predefined classification scheme. Further, the device includes an access control module that checks a lock status of the document at a predefined time interval. The predefined time interval depends on the classification tag of the document. Further, the access control module locks the document based on the lock status. Further, in the implementation, where the protected documents may be re-classified by the owner and/or by the administrator, the access and security features for that document, as mentioned above, also get updated.
Tucker et al (US 20160078247 A1) teach a system may be broken down into one or more components. Each of the components may be evaluated to ascribe a security score to each of the components. A composite security score may be generated for the system based on the security scores and a rate of decay measure characterizing a probabilistic security degradation of the system. The rate of decay measure may be applied to the composite security score to obtain a current composite security score. The composite security score may be used to control access to a document, either alone or in addition to other criteria.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ajay M Bhatia can be reached at 5712723906. 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.
/UYEN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 9 January 2026