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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fathalla (US 2022/0114274)
Regarding Claim 1,
Fathalla (US 2022/0114274) teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, from a first application, a first file request that is based on performance of a target file operation on a target resource file (Paragraph [0003] teaches “receive, from a first application…a first access request for a file…The first access request may include a first modification privilege request and a modification privilege sharing request”)(Also see Paragraph [0024, 0038, 0046])
detecting, based on the first file request and preset permission information, whether the first application has an operation permission for the target file operation;
and invoking, based on the first file request and when the first application has the operation permission, system resources from a target service corresponding to the target resource file (Paragraph [0003] teaches grant the first application instance access to the file…)(Paragraph [0038] teaches granting access when file is not locked)(Paragraph [0058] teaches processes are implemented as a service); wherein the system resources comprise software entities and hardware entities for use in a running process of the first application (Paragraphs [0037-0038] teaches granting application access to the file including software and hardware entities).
Regarding Claim 6,
Fathalla teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the target operation is a write operation, wherein the first file request comprises target data and wherein invoking the system resources comprises writing the target data into the system resources (Paragraph [0024] teaches write operation)
Regarding Claim 7,
Fathalla teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the target file operation is a read operation, and wherein invoking the system resources comprises: reading, based on the first file request, target data from the system resources and transmitting, to the first application, the target data (Paragraph [0020] teaches read operation)
Regarding Claim 8,
Fathalla teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the target file operation comprises a read operation or a write operation (Paragraph [0024] teaches write operation)(Paragraph [0020] teaches read operation)
Regarding Claim 9,
Claims 9 are similar in scope to Claim 1 and is rejected for a similar rationale.
Regarding Claims 13-15,
Claims 13-15 are similar in scope to Claims 6-8 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Regarding Claims 16,
Claims 16 are similar in scope to Claims 1 and is rejected for a similar rationale.
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) 2-5, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fathalla in view of Avrahami (US 2019/0034648)
Regarding Claims 2-3,
Fathalla teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: obtaining from the first application a second file request that is based on accessing the target resource file (Paragraph [0003] teaches second access request);
but does not explicitly teach further determining based on the second file request, that the first application has access permission, wherein obtaining the first file request comprises: obtaining the first file request responsive to the second file request indicating the first application has the access permission, wherein obtaining the second file request comprises: performing identity verification on the first application; and obtaining in response to the identity verification succeeding, the second file request
Avrahami (US 2019/0034648) teaches determining based on the second file request, that the first application has access permission, wherein obtaining the first file request comprises: obtaining the first file request responsive to the second file request indicating the first application has the access permission, wherein obtaining the second file request comprises: performing identity verification on the first application; and obtaining in response to the identity verification succeeding, the second file request (Paragraph [0029] teaches “indicate an application that is authorized to access the file or a list of file types that are authorized to be generated from the file based on the policy data”, i.e. identity verification of the first application)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fathalla to include the identity verification of the first application and the results would be predictable (i.e. the identity of the application would be verified and determined if the first application has access permission)
Regarding Claim 4,
Fathalla and Avrahami teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the second file request comprises first identification information of the target resource file and second identification information of the first application, and wherein performing the identity verification on the first application comprises performing based on the first identification information and the second identification information the identity verification on the first application (Paragraph [0029] teaches identification of the first application (e.g. spreadsheet) and target resource file (i.e. file to modify))
Regarding Claim 5,
Fathalla and Avrahami teaches the method of claim 4, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first identification information is a file path of the target resource file
The Examiner takes Official Notice that file paths are a well known method of identification information
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fathalla to include file paths and the results would be predictable (i.e. the file path would be used as identification information)
Regarding Claims 17-20,
Claims 17-20 are similar in scope to Claims 2-5 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fathalla in view of Avrahami (US 2019/0034648) in further view of Lin (US 2017/0235618)
Regarding Claim 10,
Fathalla teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: obtain from the first application a second file request that is based on accessing the target resource file (Paragraph [0003] teaches second access request);
but does not explicitly teach further determine based on the second file request, that the first application has access permission, wherein obtaining the first file request comprises: obtaining the first file request responsive to the second file request indicating the first application has the access permission, wherein obtaining the second file request comprises: performing identity verification on the first application; and obtain in response to the identity verification succeeding, the second file request
Fathalla teaches a first and second channel (Fig. 4)
Avrahami (US 2019/0034648) teaches determining based on the second file request, that the first application has access permission, wherein obtaining the first file request comprises: obtaining the first file request responsive to the second file request indicating the first application has the access permission, wherein obtaining the second file request comprises: performing identity verification on the first application; and obtaining in response to the identity verification succeeding, the second file request (Paragraph [0029] teaches “indicate an application that is authorized to access the file or a list of file types that are authorized to be generated from the file based on the policy data”, i.e. identity verification of the first application)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fathalla to include the identity verification of the first application and the results would be predictable (i.e. the identity of the application would be verified and determined if the first application has access permission)
Fathalla and Avrahami do not explicitly teach establish a third communication channel between the target service and the first application responsive to the first application having the access permission
Lin (US 2017/0235618) teaches establish a communication channel between the target service and the first application (Paragraph [0050] teaches “a communication channel is established between the…application and the map application service”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fathalla in responsive to the first application having the access permission to establish a communication channel between the target service and application and the results would be predictable (i.e. a channel would be establish responsive to the application having access permission)
Regarding Claims 11-12,
Claims 11-12 and Claim 3, 5 are similar in scope and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRIS C WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1462. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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.
/HARRIS C WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights