DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in reply to papers filed on 2025-07-16. Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 21, 34, 38 is/are independent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22-25, 35, 39 is 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. For the reasons detailed in the Office Action of 2024-12-18, pages 2-3, the prior art of record discloses less than all the features of the combination of claim 22. Claims 23-25, 35, 39 would be allowable because they include subject matter corresponding to claim 22.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 2025-04-01 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Summary of Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following table summarizes the rejections set forth in detail below of the claims over the prior art.
Claim No.
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 in view of Protopopov '832
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 in view of Chakravorty '543
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 in view of Steele '524
21
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
22
23
24
25
26
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
27
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
28
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
29
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
30
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
31
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
32
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
33
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
34
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
35
36
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
37
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
38
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
39
40
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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 AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 that 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21, 26-29, 34, 36, 38, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 20220066993 to Khanuja et al. (hereinafter "Khanuja '993") in view of U.S. Publication 20090196311 to Khosravy (hereinafter "Khosravy '311"). Khanuja '993 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Khosravy '311 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 21 (independent):
Khanuja '993 discloses a method (creates snapshot in protection domain for user by auditors and other users [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160])
Khanuja '993 discloses identifying, by a computing system comprising one or more processor devices, a data subset from a secured data set stored in a secured datastore associated with a first computing domain, the data subset a proper subset of the secured data set (identifies subset of records on first cluster to include in snapshot via Data Access Management (DAM) policy and sanitization script [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0163, 0202, 0206-0207, 0221]; machines, clusters, processor(s), memory, computer readable media, storage, executable instructions [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0046-0050])
Khanuja '993 discloses generating, by the computing system, a replicated data subset in a transient datastore that is segregated from the secured datastore, the replicated data subset being a replica of the data subset from the secured data set (creates snapshot for high availability or auditors [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0037-0038, 0091, 0144, 0202-0204, 0200]; stores replica in protection domain [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0160, 0209]; stores replica on remote cluster [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143, 0145])
Khanuja '993 discloses enabling, by the computing system, a client device associated with a second computing domain to access the replicated data subset according to a data access policy (enables access to snapshot by other users and auditors [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0144, 0032, 0091]; stores replica in protection domain [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0160]; user outside of cluster [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0056] C1 sends request to server 405 is redirected to agents 430, 435, who "fulfil that request from the databases 445A" [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0098, 0090, 0056]; access restricted by password [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0137])
Khanuja '993 does not disclose subsequent to enabling the client device to access the replicated data subset, automatically replicating a change to the data subset into the replicated data subset
However, Khanuja '993 discloses until enabling the client device to access the replicated data subset, automatically replicating a change to the data subset into the replicated data subset (syncs records from source DB into snapshot [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0032]; mapping between source cluster and snapshot in protected domain [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0161, 0165])
Further:
Khosravy '311 discloses subsequent to enabling the client device to access the replicated data subset, automatically replicating a change to the data subset into the replicated data subset (check expiration timers of replicas and synchronize if not expired [Khosravy '311 ¶ 0039-0040, 0057, 0073-0074, Fig. 3, Fig. 12])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Khanuja '993 with the lifetime synchronization of Khosravy '311 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
subsequent to enabling the client device to access the replicated data subset, automatically replicating a change to the data subset into the replicated data subset
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because lifetime synchronization would make the replica more valuable to users wanting current data. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Khosravy '311 teaches [Khosravy '311 ¶ 0039-0040, 0057, 0073-0074, Fig. 3, Fig. 12] modifying a data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160] such as that of Khanuja '993 to arrive at the claimed invention; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (lifetime synchronization [Khosravy '311 ¶ 0039-0040, 0057, 0073-0074, Fig. 3, Fig. 12]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (lifetime synchronization [Khosravy '311 ¶ 0039-0040, 0057, 0073-0074, Fig. 3, Fig. 12]) to known devices and/or methods (data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160] creates replicas while lifetime synchronization keeps them up to date [Khosravy '311 ¶ 0039-0040, 0057, 0073-0074, Fig. 3, Fig. 12]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Per claim 26 (dependent on claim 21):
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 21 above, incorporated herein by reference
Khanuja '993 does not disclose automatically replicating the change to the data subset into the replicated data subset comprises determining, by the computing system, that the change to the data subset has occurred; determining, by the computing system, that an expiration condition has not occurred; responsive to determining that the expiration condition has not occurred, replicating the change to the data subset into the replicated data subset
Further:
Khosravy '311 discloses automatically replicating the change to the data subset into the replicated data subset comprises determining, by the computing system, that the change to the data subset has occurred; determining, by the computing system, that an expiration condition has not occurred; responsive to determining that the expiration condition has not occurred, replicating the change to the data subset into the replicated data subset (check expiration timers of replicas and synchronize if not expired [Khosravy '311 ¶ 0057, Fig. 3, Fig. 11])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 21, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Khanuja '993 with the lifetime synchronization of Khosravy '311 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
automatically replicating the change to the data subset into the replicated data subset comprises determining, by the computing system, that the change to the data subset has occurred; determining, by the computing system, that an expiration condition has not occurred; responsive to determining that the expiration condition has not occurred, replicating the change to the data subset into the replicated data subset
Per claim 27 (dependent on claim 21):
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 21 above, incorporated herein by reference
Khanuja '993 discloses the transient datastore is physically segregated from the secured datastore (stores replica in protection domain [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0160, 0209]; stores replica on remote cluster [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143, 0145])
Per claim 28 (dependent on claim 21):
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 21 above, incorporated herein by reference
Khanuja '993 does not disclose automatically replicating [subsequent to enabling client device access] the change to the data subset in the secured datastore into the replicated data subset in the transient datastore comprises establishing a synchronization connector from the secured datastore to the transient datastore
However, Khanuja '993 discloses automatically replicating [prior to enabling client device access] the change to the data subset in the secured datastore into the replicated data subset in the transient datastore comprises establishing a synchronization connector from the secured datastore to the transient datastore (syncs records from source DB into snapshot [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0032]; mapping between source cluster and snapshot in protected domain [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0161, 0165])
Further:
Khosravy '311 discloses automatically replicating the change to the data subset in the secured datastore into the replicated data subset in the transient datastore comprises establishing a synchronization connector from the secured datastore to the transient datastore (check expiration timers of replicas and synchronize if not expired [Khosravy '311 ¶ 0057, Fig. 3, Fig. 11])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 21, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Khanuja '993 with the lifetime synchronization of Khosravy '311 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
automatically replicating the change to the data subset in the secured datastore into the replicated data subset in the transient datastore comprises establishing a synchronization connector from the secured datastore to the transient datastore
Per claim 29 (dependent on claim 21):
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 21 above, incorporated herein by reference
Khanuja '993 discloses the first computing domain comprises a private domain and the second computing domain comprises a public domain (stores replica in protection domain [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0160, 0209]; identifies and sanitizes per Data Access Management (DAM) policy subset of records on first cluster before including in snapshot [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0163, 0202, 0206-0207, 0221])
Per claim 34 (independent):
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 21 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 36 (dependent on claim 34):
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 34 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 26 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 38 (independent):
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 21 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 40 (dependent on claim 38):
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 38 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 26 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Claim(s) 30, 32, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 in view of U.S. Patent 9817832 to Protopopov et al. (hereinafter "Protopopov '832"). Protopopov '832 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 30 (dependent on claim 21):
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 21 above, incorporated herein by reference
Khanuja '993 discloses enabling, by the computing system, the client device to access the replicated data subset comprises receiving, by the computing system from the client device, a request to access the data subset in the secured datastore or the replicated data subset in the transient datastore (user outside of cluster [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0056] C1 sends request to server 405 is redirected to agents 430, 435, who "fulfil that request from the databases 445A" [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0098, 0090, 0056])
Khanuja '993 discloses evaluating, by the computing system, the data access policy to determine whether the request satisfies the data access policy (enables access to snapshot by other users and auditors [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0144, 0032, 0091]; stores replica in protection domain [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0160]; access restricted by password [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0137])
Khanuja '993 does not disclose responsive to determining that the request satisfies the data access policy, enabling, by the computing system, the client device to access the replicated data subset [from the transient datastore rather than the data subset in the secured datastore as requested]
However, Khanuja '993 discloses responsive to determining that the request satisfies the data access policy, enabling, by the computing system, the client device to access a data subset from a datastore (user outside of cluster [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0056] C1, e.g. auditor [Khanuja '993 ¶ -143] sends request to server 405 is redirected to agents 430, 435, who "fulfil that request from the databases 445A" [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0098, 0090, 0056])
Further:
Protopopov '832 discloses evaluating, by the computing system, the data access policy to determine whether the request satisfies the data access policy ("The policies may dictate (directly or indirectly) which of the metadata servers 405 are to be used for which of the clients 104-106." [Protopopov '832 c. 35 l. 50 – c. 36 l. 3])
Protopopov '832 discloses responsive to determining that the request satisfies the data access policy, enabling, by the computing system, the client device to access the replicated data subset ("The policies may dictate (directly or indirectly) which of the metadata servers 405 are to be used for which of the clients 104-106." [Protopopov '832 c. 35 l. 50 – c. 36 l. 3])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Khanuja '993 with the policy based redirection and encryption of Protopopov '832 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
evaluating, by the computing system, the data access policy to determine whether the request satisfies the data access policy
responsive to determining that the request satisfies the data access policy, enabling, by the computing system, the client device to access the replicated data subset
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because policy based redirection could restrict certain classes of users to accessing only the less-vital replica, thus safeguarding the original. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Protopopov '832 teaches [Protopopov '832 c. 35 l. 50 – c. 36 l. 3] modifying a data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160] such as that of Khanuja '993 to arrive at the claimed invention; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (policy based redirection [Protopopov '832 c. 35 l. 50 – c. 36 l. 3]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (policy based redirection [Protopopov '832 c. 35 l. 50 – c. 36 l. 3]) to known devices and/or methods (data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160] creates replicas while policy based redirection sorts classes of users between them [Protopopov '832 c. 35 l. 50 – c. 36 l. 3]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Per claim 32 (dependent on claim 21):
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 21 above, incorporated herein by reference
Khanuja '993 does not disclose receiving, by the computing system, one or more encryption requirements for the replicated data subset specified by the client device wherein generating, by the computing system, the replicated data subset in the transient datastore comprises encrypting, by the computing system, the replicated data subset in accordance with the one or more encryption requirements specified by client device
However, Khanuja '993 discloses receiving, by the computing system, one or more masking requirements for the replicated data subset specified by the client device wherein generating, by the computing system, the replicated data subset in the transient datastore comprises masking, by the computing system, the replicated data subset in accordance with the one or more masking requirements specified by client device (generates snapshot by masking data per policy [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0203-0207])
Further:
Protopopov '832 discloses receiving, by the computing system, one or more encryption requirements for the replicated data subset specified by the client device wherein generating, by the computing system, the replicated data subset in the transient datastore comprises encrypting, by the computing system, the replicated data subset in accordance with the one or more encryption requirements specified by client device (performs encryption services according to policy [Protopopov '832 c. 48 l. 47 – l. 67; c. 40 l. 37 – l. 65; c. 47 l. 1-12])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 30, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Khanuja '993 with the policy based redirection and encryption of Protopopov '832 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
receiving, by the computing system, one or more encryption requirements for the replicated data subset specified by the client device wherein generating, by the computing system, the replicated data subset in the transient datastore comprises encrypting, by the computing system, the replicated data subset in accordance with the one or more encryption requirements specified by client device
Per claim 37 (dependent on claim 34):
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 34 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 30 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 in view of U.S. Patent 10812543 to Chakravorty et al. (hereinafter "Chakravorty '543"). Chakravorty '543 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 31 (dependent on claim 21):
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 21 above, incorporated herein by reference
Khanuja '993 does not disclose the data access policy specifies a set of one or more acceptable access interfaces for the replicated data subset and enabling, by the computing system, the client device to access the replicated data subset comprises enabling, by the computing system, the client device to access the replicated data subset via only one of the acceptable access interfaces
However, Khanuja '993 discloses a set of one or more acceptable access interfaces for the replicated data subset and enabling, by the computing system, the client device to access the replicated data subset comprises enabling, by the computing system, the client device to access the replicated data subset via only one of the acceptable access interfaces (access via API, http, GUI, text-based, man-machine interface [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0064-0066])
Further:
Chakravorty '543 discloses the data access policy specifies a set of one or more acceptable access interfaces for the replicated data subset and enabling, by the computing system, the client device to access the replicated data subset comprises enabling, by the computing system, the client device to access the replicated data subset via only one of the acceptable access interfaces (access policy determines allowed interfaces, e.g. publish/subscribe syndication, push, pull, etc. [Chakravorty '543 c. 18 l. 42 – c. 19 l. 23])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Khanuja '993 with the policy based interfaces of Chakravorty '543 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the data access policy specifies a set of one or more acceptable access interfaces for the replicated data subset and enabling, by the computing system, the client device to access the replicated data subset comprises enabling, by the computing system, the client device to access the replicated data subset via only one of the acceptable access interfaces
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because policy based interfaces would prevent various classes of users from overloading administrative interfaces or from utilizing interfaces with capabilities those classes of users were not authorized to employ. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Chakravorty '543 teaches [Chakravorty '543 c. 18 l. 42 – c. 19 l. 23] modifying a data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160] such as that of Khanuja '993 to arrive at the claimed invention; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (policy based interfaces [Chakravorty '543 c. 18 l. 42 – c. 19 l. 23]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (policy based interfaces [Chakravorty '543 c. 18 l. 42 – c. 19 l. 23]) to known devices and/or methods (data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160] creates replicas for access via policy based interfaces [Chakravorty '543 c. 18 l. 42 – c. 19 l. 23]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 in view of U.S. Publication 20020184524 to Steele et al. (hereinafter "Steele '524"). Steele '524 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 33 (dependent on claim 21):
Khanuja '993 in view of Khosravy '311 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 21 above, incorporated herein by reference
Khanuja '993 does not disclose receiving, by the computing system, one or more requested edits to the replicated data subset from the client device; evaluating, by the computing system, the data access policy to determine whether edits to the replicated data subset from the client device are permitted; and responsive to determining that edits to the replicated data subset from the client device are permitted, editing, by the computing system, the replicated data subset according to the one or more requested edits
Further:
Steele '524 discloses receiving, by the computing system, one or more requested edits to the replicated data subset from the client device; evaluating, by the computing system, the data access policy to determine whether edits to the replicated data subset from the client device are permitted; and responsive to determining that edits to the replicated data subset from the client device are permitted, editing, by the computing system, the replicated data subset according to the one or more requested edits (administrator sets policy / ACL allowing outside supplier to view and to add "supplier comments" only to replica of "problem log database" [Steele '524 ¶ 0030])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Khanuja '993 with the user modification rights per policy of Steele '524 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
receiving, by the computing system, one or more requested edits to the replicated data subset from the client device; evaluating, by the computing system, the data access policy to determine whether edits to the replicated data subset from the client device are permitted; and responsive to determining that edits to the replicated data subset from the client device are permitted, editing, by the computing system, the replicated data subset according to the one or more requested edits
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because limiting user rights to modify data could confine certain classes of users to modifying only the less-vital replica, thus safeguarding the original. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Steele '524 teaches [Steele '524 ¶ 0030] modifying a data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160] such as that of Khanuja '993 to arrive at the claimed invention; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (user modification rights per policy [Steele '524 ¶ 0030]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (user modification rights per policy [Steele '524 ¶ 0030]) to known devices and/or methods (data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (data replication and access control scheme [Khanuja '993 ¶ 0143-0144, 0032, 0091, 0160] creates replicas that uses can modify only as permitted by policy [Steele '524 ¶ 0030]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C PARSONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1475. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWRF 7:30-4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jung Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms.
/THEODORE C PARSONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights