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
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Any references to applicant’s specification are made by way of applicant’s U.S. pre-grant printed patent publication.
This action is in response to the communication filed on 4/1/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, the applicant’s specification fails to adequately describe the recitation “…authenticate a user … based on a … confirmation that the user has installed a data management system agent on the user computing device…”. Specifically, the applicant fails to describe how “authentication” of a user is “based” on confirming whether or not software is installed on the user’s device. The examiner points out that authentication is understood within the art to be based upon the verification of an identity of a user – not whether software is installed on the user’s device. An indication of software being installed on a device does not indicate any particular user of the device upon which the software was installed.
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 4, 18, and 19 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.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the recitations “…switch between one or more encryption algorithms…” and “…switching between one or more encryption algorithms…” renders the scope of the claims unclear. Specifically, the examiner points out that if the claims, as recited, are broadly limited to a single encryption algorithm (i.e. …one or more … algorithms…), then it is unclear as to how a switching between algorithms could be implemented (i.e. an embodiment comprising a single algorithm has no means for switching to a secondary algorithm).
Regarding claim 6, the recitation “…authenticate a user … based on a … confirmation that the user has installed a data management system agent on the user computing device…” renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how the “authentication” of a user is “based” on confirming whether or not software is installed on the user’s device. The examiner points out that authentication is understood within the art to be based upon the verification of an identity of a user – not whether software is installed on the user’s device.
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 1 - 4, and 6 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duncan et al. (Duncan), US 2005/0114672 A1.
Regarding claim 1, as best determined in view of the above noted deficiencies of clarity, Duncan discloses:
A system for content encapsulation and secure communication of content, the system comprising: (e.g. Duncan, Abstract):
a data agency manager configured to facilitate communication of content from a content owner computing device to a user computing device based at least in part on defined governance logic for the content (e.g. Duncan, fig. 4; fig. 5:130; par. 14, 44, 67 – 70; fig. 7);
a data encapsulation layer in communication with the data agency manager, the data encapsulation layer configured to bind the content to the defined governance logic, wherein the content bound to the defined governance logic is associated with a digital agency capsule (e.g. Duncan, Abstract; fig. 1; par. 14, 16, 25-29 – the system comprises an wrapping layer for producing an encapsulation that binds access control policies with the content of the data archive)
and a communication layer in communication with the data agency manager, the communication layer configured to communicate one or more a digital agency capsules from the content owner computing device to the user computing device according to the defined governance logic in each digital agency capsule (e.g. Duncan, fig. 2; par. 15, 29, 89 – the system comprises a sharing layer for sharing the encapsulation produced by an owner to a user computing device).
Regarding claim 2, Duncan discloses:
further comprising an encryption and cryptographic services layer in communication with the data encapsulation layer, the encryption and cryptographic services layer configured to: perform, prior to binding the content to the defined governance logic, a first encryption process on the content (e.g. Duncan, fig. 2 – herein the system comprises a cryptographic layer such that before encapsulation within the license layer, the data archive is encrypted – i.e. “a first encryption process”);
and perform, prior to binding the content to the defined governance logic, a second encryption process on the defined governance logic (e.g. Duncan, fig. 2 – before encapsulation within the license layer, the governance permissions are encrypted – i.e. “a second encryption process”).
Regarding claim 3, Duncan discloses:
wherein the first encryption process and the second encryption process comprises a fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) algorithm or another encryption algorithm (e.g. Duncan, par. 32, 45, 62 – another encryption algorithm).
Regarding claim 4, as best determined in view of the above noted deficiencies of clarity, Duncan discloses:
wherein the encryption and cryptographic services layer is further configured to switch between one or more encryption algorithms (e.g. Duncan, par. 32, 45, 62, 89, 267).
Regarding claim 6, as best determined in view of the above noted deficiencies of clarity, Duncan discloses:
wherein the data agency manager is further configured to authenticate a user of the user computing device based on a user identifier associated with the user (e.g. Duncan, par. 21) and confirmation that the user has installed a data management system agent on the user computing device (e.g. Duncan, par. 18, 19, 22, 25 – a portable permission control wrapper is installed on the user device and is used for confirming the user’s identity).
Regarding claim 7, Duncan discloses:
wherein the user identifier is linked to access rights for the user (e.g. Duncan, par. 18, 19, 21, 22, 25).
Regarding claim 8, Duncan discloses:
further comprising a dynamic permissions model in communication with the data agency manager, the dynamic permissions model configured to monitor interactions between the user computing device and the one or more a digital agency capsules communicated via the communication layer (e.g. Duncan, fig. 2; par. 15, 25, 29, 89, 220 - 235), wherein the interactions are monitored with respect to the defined governance logic in each a digital agency capsule of the one or more a digital agency capsules (e.g. Duncan, fig. 2; par. 15, 25, 29, 89).
Regarding claim 9, Duncan discloses:
wherein the interactions are monitored in real-time (e.g. Duncan, fig. 2; par. 15, 25, 26, 29, 89, 91, 220 - 235).
Regarding claim 10, Duncan discloses:
wherein the dynamic permissions model is further configured to receive one or more compliance reports from the user via one or more interfaces or access points of the user computing device (e.g. Duncan, par. 17, 19, 25, 29, 30, 51, 91).
Regarding claim 11, Duncan discloses:
wherein the dynamic permissions model is further configured to: send, to the user computing device, a periodic permit signal (e.g. Duncan, par. 29; see also par. 31, 117 – 120);
and receive, from the user computing device, a response to each instance of the periodic permit signal, wherein the response indicates whether the user is accessing the one or more a digital agency capsules according to the defined governance logic in each a digital agency capsule (e.g. Duncan, par. 221 – 223, 230, 233; see also 17, 19, 25, 29, 30, 51, 91).
Regarding claim 12, Duncan discloses:
wherein the data agency manager is further configured to: determine whether the monitored interactions comply with the defined governance logic in each a digital agency capsule of the one or more a digital agency capsules (e.g. Duncan, par. 29; see also par. 31, 117 – 120);
and revoke access to the one or more a digital agency capsules for the user computing device based at least in part on determining the monitored instances do not comply with the defined governance logic in each a digital agency capsule (e.g. Duncan, par. 220 - 235; see also 17, 19, 25, 29, 30, 51, 91).
Regarding claim 13, Duncan discloses:
further comprising one or more access gateways coupled to the data agency manager, the one or more access gateways configured to integrate the one or more a digital agency capsules with one or more external systems for communicating the one or more a digital agency capsules to the user computing device (e.g. Duncan, par. 92, 180; fig. 8; claim 9).
Regarding claim 14, Duncan discloses:
wherein the one or more external systems comprise an application programming interface (API) system or another external system (e.g. Duncan, par. 92, 180; fig. 8; claim 9).
Regarding claims 15 – 18, they are method claims, essentially corresponding to the claims above, and are rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 5, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan et al. (Duncan), US 2005/0114672 A1 in view of Rodriquez, US 2023/0147698 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Duncan discloses a system for creating a container or wrapping of content along with permissions. Duncan, however, fails to disclose the application of a cryptographic signature to the wrapper.
Rodriguez discloses a system for creating a container or wrapping of content along with permissions. Furthermore, Rodriguez discloses the application of a cryptographic signature to the wrapper (e.g. Rodriguez, par. 147, 268, 292 – herein PKI encryption comprises the encryption with a private key, i.e. the creation of a signature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the digital signature teachings of Rodriguez within the system of Duncan. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings that private key encryption enables data owners to cryptographically prove ownership of their data (e.g. Rodriguez, par. 292).
Thus, the combination enables:
wherein the encryption and cryptographic services layer is further configured to employ a cryptographic signature from the content owner computing device for the defined governance logic for the content (e.g. Duncan, fig. 2; Rodriguez, par. 147, 268, 292).
Regarding claim 19, it is a method claim, essentially corresponding to the claims above, and it is rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 20, it is an apparatus claim, essentially corresponding to the claims above, and it is rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
Furthermore, regarding claim 20, although Duncan fails to disclose, Rodriguez does disclose a processor; and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: … (e.g. Rodriguez, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the teachings of Rodriguez for employing a processor, memory, and instructions to implement a system for creating a content capsule (i.e. a wrapper or container). This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the need to use known technological means to practically implement a computing system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7965. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights