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
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 03/06/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12277237. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant application claims 1-20 are anticipated by the patented application claims 1-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4, 6-10, 12-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unger et al. (US 20110119307 A1) hereinafter referred to as Unger.
With respect to claim 1, Unger discloses: A system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory, coupled with the one or more processors, the memory comprising stored instructions executable by the one or more processors, the instructions when executed cause the one or more processors to: (Unger Fig. 2 illustrates computing system comprising the recited hardware).
receive a data request associated with a user; (Unger ¶34 teaches receiving user logon request)
determine data corresponding to the data request; determine whether the user has requisite permissions to access the data; (Unger ¶34 “The system recognizes the user by the unique ID and provides the user interface associated with that user ID 303. The user interface will present the folders, tools. and tables that the user has permission to access [requisite permissions], as determined by the user ID entered at log in.”)
and in response to determining that the user has requisite permissions to access the data:
determine, based on a profile of the user, a manner by which to provide access to the data; (Unger ¶34 teaches several manners from interface to type of request).
in response to determining to provide data by providing access to a location at which the data is stored:
create a table at a secure location of a storage system, the table comprising the data for which the user is authorized to access; (Unger ¶34 “The system dynamically builds multiple database tables 307 reflecting the collaboration tools in the central record system” that the physician user is authorized to access).
and generate a token for access to the data in the created table at the secure location. (Unger ¶34 “The system logically binds 309 the new account to that of the creating physician. The system assigns a unique user ID [token]”).
Claims 15 and 18 recite a method and non-transitory computer readable storage medium respectively. The claims have slight difference in language but recite same matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 2, Unger discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to determine the manner by which to provide access to the data is based at least on a level of the requisite permissions the user has. (Unger ¶14 teaches different manners based on which level of permission for example it recites “dynamic creation of a permission [different levels] … discrete permissions of read only, read/write, and no access through an asynchronous method.” Each reciting a manner of access based on the level of control the permission(s) grants).
Claims 16 and 19 recite a method and non-transitory computer readable storage medium respectively. The claims have slight difference in language but recite same matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 3, Unger discloses: The system of claim 2, wherein the instructions to provide access to a location at which the data is stored further cause the one or more processors to: filter the data according to (i) data responsive to the data request, (Unger ¶34 teaches steps of processing a data request which comprises filtering the data and presenting it to the user when reciting “present the folders, tools and tables that the user has permission to access”)
and (ii) permissions of the user or application requesting such data; (Unger ¶14 teaches permissions types to allow access [filter] to records).
and provide the user access to the filtered data. (Unger ¶34 teaches steps of processing a data request which comprises filtering the data and presenting it to the user when reciting “present the folders, tools and tables that the user has permission to access”)
Claims 17 and 20 recite a method and non-transitory computer readable storage medium respectively. The claims have slight difference in language but recite same matter as claim 3 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 4, Unger discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the data corresponding to the data request comprises a new structure, a file, a table, or one or more values. (Unger ¶34 teaches at least file and table when reciting “present the folders, tools and tables that the user has permission to access”).
With respect to claim 6, Unger discloses: The system of claim 1, further comprising instructions that when executed cause the one or more processors to: provide a path to a location at which the data is stored; and access to the stored data based only on the token. (Unger ¶36 teaches creating an index [path] to access data based on the ID [token]).
With respect to claim 7, Unger discloses: The system of claim 6, further comprising instructions that when executed cause the one or more processors to: access to the storage system constitutes certain data in response to the data request; (Unger ¶34 and 36 teach access is only to the certain data in the generated database/table).
and permits access associated with the request to only the table that has been constituted in response to receiving a request in connection with the token. (Unger ¶34 and 36 teach access is only to the certain data in the generated database/table based on the ID [token]).
With respect to claim 8, Unger discloses: The system of claim 7, wherein the certain data is constituted based on permissions associated with the user. (Unger ¶14 and 34 teach different types of users like patient or physician and caregivers who have different permissions to which they have certain access to and also certain manner such as read or write, etc.).
With respect to claim 9, Unger discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the stored data is stored on a system for data storage and further comprising instructions that when executed cause the one or more processors to mediate, by a metastore layer, user requests to access data comprised in a data pool. (Unger ¶36 teaches indexing table interpreted as a metastore layer which stores indexed data).
With respect to claim 10, Unger discloses: The system of claim 9, wherein the metastore layer stores an index of information comprised in the stored data. (Unger ¶36 teaches indexing table interpreted as a metastore layer which stores indexed data).
With respect to claim 12, Unger discloses: The system of claim 9, wherein the metastore layer stores permissions for one or more users with respect to information comprised in the stored data. (Unger ¶36 “the session ID acquires an authenticated token granting access to the database and creates databases dynamically [stored data] upon account type and unique user ID 502 and asynchronous communication is provided according to authorized permissions 503 [stored permissions]. The user's table 504, 505 creates a unique index table ID based upon the role chosen for the account (patient/provider).”).
With respect to claim 13, Unger discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein an extent of a permission that the token provides with respect to the stored data is defined based on the data request. (Unger ¶35 teaches ID access permissions are unique based on the data request from the specific ID).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unger as applied to claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13 and 15-20 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 20170230478 A1) hereinafter referred to as Huang.
With respect to claim 5, Unger discloses: The system of claim 1,
Unger does not explicitly disclose: wherein the token comprises a uniform resource locator (URL) or uniform resource identifier (URI) for identifying the secure location.
However, Huang in an analogous art discloses: wherein the token comprises a uniform resource locator (URL) or uniform resource identifier (URI) for identifying the secure location. (Huang ¶55 teaches signing a URL that directs to stored data and forwarding the URL to the user to gain access to the data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Unger wherein the token comprises a uniform resource locator (URL) or uniform resource identifier (URI) for identifying the secure location as disclosed by Huang to allow for secure access to the stored data in a way as taught by Huang (see Huang ¶55).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unger as applied to claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13 and 15-20 above, and further in view of Roy et al. (US 20190026309 A1) hereinafter referred to as Roy.
With respect to claim 11, Unger discloses: The system of claim 9,
Unger does not explicitly disclose: wherein the metastore layer stores metadata associated with information comprised in the stored data.
However, Roy in an analogous art discloses: wherein the metastore layer stores metadata associated with information comprised in the stored data. (Roy ¶36 teaches “object consistency metastore, comprises metadata that identifies an expected state of the data after execution of a data operation by the asynchronous operation file system 114.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Unger wherein the metastore layer stores metadata associated with information comprised in the stored data as taught by Roy to store metadata that identifies expected state of data (Roy ¶36).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unger as applied to claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13 and 15-20 above, and further in view of Rajput et al. (US 20220360989 A1) hereinafter referred to as Rajput.
With respect to claim 14, Unger discloses: The system of claim 1,
Unger does not explicitly disclose: further comprising instructions that when executed cause the one or more processors to expire the token after a preset period of time, at a preset time, or in response to an action.
However, Rajput in an analogous art discloses: further comprising instructions that when executed cause the one or more processors to expire the token after a preset period of time, at a preset time, or in response to an action. (Rajput ¶54 teaches access token has a present expiration time included).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Unger with further comprising instructions that when executed cause the one or more processors to expire the token after a preset period of time, at a preset time, or in response to an action as disclosed by Rajput because if the token does not expire that exposes it to security threats (see Rajput ¶54).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANY S GADALLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2322. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/HANY S. GADALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights