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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 4,12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1,9 and 17 of prior U.S. Patent No.12287895. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claims 4,12 and 20, the claims disclose the same limitation as independent claims 1,9 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12287895.
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 1-3,5-11 and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3,5-11 and 13-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12287895. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationale:
Claim 1 of this instant application merely recites a broader scope of what is recited in Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12287895. That is, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12287895 anticipates Claim 1 of the instant application. Claims 9 and 17 are also rejected due to their similarities to Claim 1.
With regards to Dependent Claims, said claims are also rejected due to their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,7-8,12,15-16 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, prior art does not explicitly disclose determining whether the second set of data elements collectively satisfy the one or more data access rules by processing the second set of data elements using the third set of one or more trained machine learning models
Regarding Claims 7,15 and 20, prior art does not explicitly disclose training the machine learning models with the first, second, and third dataset intertwined with the first, second and third rule.
Claims 8 and 16, due to their dependency to Claims 7 and 15 would be allowed if the base claims are rewritten in an independent form.
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) 1-3,5-6,9-11,13-14,17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena (US20190327271) in view of Yu (us20190258818).
Regarding Claims 1,9 and 17, Saxena discloses: A method for using one or more machine learning models to automatically control data access, comprising: (Paragraph [0005] E.N. An access control graph may be used to represent the access controls and the access control relations across the IT infrastructure. The access control graph(s) may be obtained using machine learning and other artificial intelligence techniques)
receiving, from a first user, a first request for data relating to a second user; (Paragraph [0087] E.N. The users may request data or services of another user)
upon determining that the first request satisfies the one or more data access rules, automatically retrieving a first plurality of data elements based on the first request; (Paragraph [0086] E.N. The conditions which may be specified using access policy parameters, may include physical condition such as times when access is permitted, and/or the object being accessed. It is therefore axiomatic if the request is satisfied, the data/object is accessed.)
automatically determining whether each of the first plurality of data elements satisfies the one or more data access rules by processing each of the first plurality of data elements individually using a second set of one or more trained machine learning models; (Paragraph [0087] and Paragraph [0093] E.N. Service may attempt to access objects. As a system grows in complexity, with thousands of actors and objects each governed by respective access permission/access control policies, manual management of security and access control policies may become impracticable. The actor-object policy correlation engine (AOPC) may read access control policies from some or all of the entities associated with an IT infrastructure. It is therefore determined whether the rules for each of the relationship between the entities, users and objects are reflected in the modeled scenarios.)
upon determining that each data element of a first set of data elements, from the first plurality of data elements, individually satisfies the one or more data access rules, determining whether the first set of data elements collectively satisfies the one or more data access rules by processing the first set of data elements using a third set of one or more trained machine learning models; (Paragraph [0101] E.N. The access policy related to an actor or object may be determined by interpreting all access control policies related to the subject and other entities, in part, by using functionality provided by policy engine. The access control policies associated with an actor or object may be determined automatically.)
and upon determining that the first set of data elements satisfy the one or more data access rules, generating a custom report including the first set of data elements. (Paragraph [0098] and Paragraph [0143]) E.N. Access control policies and/or attributes associated with entities may be reported. Software Vendors may include functionality to export the results from verification and searches into reports, save searches, and/or share the results with others.)
Saxena does not, but in related art, Yu discloses: automatically determining whether the first request satisfies one or more data access rules by processing the first request using a first set of one or more trained machine learning models; (Paragraph [0038-0039] E.N. A model (machine learning model) may be used to generate an action or response to inquiry request. The model may be used to determine how to respond to an inquiry request for a particular user based on how other similar users have responded to similar inquiry request in the past.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saxena to incorporate the teachings of Yu because Saxena does not explicitly disclose automatically determine if the request is satisfied using a machine learning model which is taught by Yu. Incorporating the teachings of Yu to Saxena allows for the use of machine learning models to determine if a request is a valid or invalid request based on access rules/policies.
Regarding Claim 2,10 and 18 Saxena in view of Yu discloses the method of Claim 1, the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9 and the system of claim 17. Saxena further discloses: and upon determining that the second request does not satisfy the one or more data access rules, refraining from retrieving data for the second request. (Paragraph [0055] E.N. Users in a specified groups (such as developers) may not access data tagged as ‘sensitive’ in some specific workloads. It is therefore axiomatic, that a request to access data will be denied if the user is in a specific group (i.e., does not satisfy access rules)).
Saxena does not, but in related art, Yu teaches: receiving a second request; determining whether the second request satisfies the one or more data access rules by processing the second request using the first set of one or more trained machine learning models; (Paragraph [0037-0038] E.N. Machine learning may be implemented and be used to generate an ‘action’ or ‘response’ to inquiry request. One of ordinary skill in the art can determine that a model may be used to determine if a request satisfies data access rules.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saxena to incorporate the teachings of Yu because Saxena does not explicitly disclose automatically determine if the request is satisfied using a machine learning model which is taught by Yu. Incorporating the teachings of Yu to Saxena allows for the use of machine learning models to determine if a request is a valid or invalid request based on access rules/policies.
Regarding Claim 3,11 and 19 Saxena in view of Yu discloses the method of Claim 1 the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9 and the system of claim 17. Saxena further discloses: upon determining that a second set of data elements, from the first plurality of data elements, does not satisfy the one or more data access rules, refraining from providing the second set of data elements. (Paragraph [0067] E.N. Access control rules are implemented wherein revocation is enforced if the rules are inconsistent with the access control policies. One of ordinary skill in the art can determine that if the polices are not satisfied, the rules to access are revoked.)
Regarding Claim 5 and 13 Saxena in view of Yu discloses the method of Claim 1 and the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9. Saxena does not, but in related art, Yu teaches: transmitting, to the second user, a notification that the first set of data elements was accessed by the first user. (Paragraph [0118] E.N. An alert can be generated and delivered to the user. The alert provides the user with the ability to respond to the alert in real time. It is therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to deduce if a user’s data was accessed (by a first user), an alert (i.e., a notification) is sent to the owner of the said data (second user).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saxena to incorporate the teachings of Yu because Saxena does not explicitly disclose a notification that data was accessed by a user which is taught by Yu. Incorporating the teachings of Yu to Saxena allows for the system to alert users if their information is being accessed.
Regarding Claim 6 and 14 Saxena in view of Yu discloses the method of Claim 1 and the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9. Saxena further discloses: receiving a second request; determining that the second request does not satisfy the one or more data access rules; and generating custom report specifying a reason that the second request was denied. (Paragraph [0177-0178] E.N. A policy document may specify whether the policy allows or denies access to an associated entity and/or list of actions that are allowed or denied. The request may also be allowed or denied based on the policies associated with the user. One of ordinary skill in the art can determine that the document (i.e., report) shows if access is allowed/denied.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AAYUSH ARYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2838. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/AAYUSH ARYAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights