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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
“… generating at least one data object based on the content and the one or more parameters; and performing an encapsulation process to bind the at least one data object …” (e.g. claim 1, and essentially similar recitations within claim 12).
“…wherein the digital agency capsule includes a data object associated with content …” (e.g. claim 20).
Specifically, the examiner notes that the applicant’s drawings fail to show the generation of a “data object” from content and parameters. Furthermore, while the applicant’s drawings illustrate the encapsulation of the content (e.g. Fig. 5:506), the applicant fails to illustrate the encapsulation of a “data object” or a capsule that includes a “data object”.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1 – 20 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 claims 1 and 12, the applicant’s written description fails to disclose adequate support for the recitation “… generating at least one data object based on the content and the one or more parameters; and performing an encapsulation process to bind the at least one data object …” (e.g. claim 1, and essentially similar recitations within claim 12).
Specifically, the applicant’s disclosure fails to define the algorithm or procedure for generating a “data object” based on “content”. Furthermore, while the applicant’s discloses encapsulating content, the applicant fails to disclose the procedure for encapsulating a data object.
Regarding claim 8, the applicant fails to describe “… exchanging compliance and permission signaling …”.
Regarding claim 20, the applicant’s written description fails to disclose adequate support for the recitation“…wherein the digital agency capsule includes a data object associated with content …” (e.g. claim 20).
Specifically, while the applicant’s drawings illustrate the encapsulation of the content (e.g. Fig. 5:506), the applicant fails to illustrate the encapsulation of a “data object” or a capsule that includes a “data object”.
Depending 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 1 – 20 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 1, 12, and 20 the recitations “… generating at least one data object based on the content and the one or more parameters; and performing an encapsulation process to bind the at least one data object …” (e.g. claim 1, and essentially similar recitations within claim 12) and “…wherein the digital agency capsule includes a data object associated with content …” (e.g. claim 20) render the scope of the claims indefinite.
Specifically, the term “data object” has not standardized meaning within the art, and the applicant’s disclosure fails to define the nature of the claimed “data object” and how such “data object” is to be generated from the “content”. Thus, it is not clear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to the subject matter falling within the scope of the term “data object” and as to specifically how any such data object would be generated from content.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation of “…exchanging compliance and permission signaling …” renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear as to what comprise “compliance” signaling and “permission” signaling, as such terms have no standard meaning within the art. Furthermore, the applicant’s specification fails to provide a definition for such terms.
Regarding claim 20, the recitation“… the content in the digital agency capsule…” lacks antecedent basis within the claims. Specifically, the claims recite that a “data object” is included within the capsule, but does not recite that the capsule further includes “content”.
Depending 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 - 3, 5, 6, 8 – 11, and 20 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 method for data encapsulation (e.g. Duncan, Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, at a user interface, an indication of content associated with a content owner(e.g. Duncan, fig. 4; par. 14, 44, 67 – 70; fig. 7);
receiving one or more governance policies corresponding to the content, wherein the one or more governance polices include one or more parameters, the one or more parameters defining parameter characteristics of the content and include at least one of an accessing parameter, a sharing parameter, and a utilizing parameter (e.g. Duncan, par. 14; 67 – 70, 74; fig. 40 – content provider/administrator defines permissions, i.e. “governance policies”, for accessing, e.g. sharing, reading, etc., the content);
generating at least one data object based on the content and the one or more parameters (e.g. Duncan, fig. 1:106; fig. 2; par. 18, 23, 24 – a data archive is generated).
and performing an encapsulation process to bind the at least one data object with the one or more governance policies into a digital agency capsule (e.g. Duncan, Abstract; par. 14 – wrapper binds access control policies with the content of the data archive)
Regarding claim 2, Duncan discloses:
performing, prior to the encapsulation process, a first encryption process on the data object (e.g. Duncan, fig. 2 – before encapsulation within the license layer, the data archive is encrypted – i.e. “a first encryption process”);
and performing, prior to the encapsulation process, a second encryption process on the one or more governance policies (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 include at least one of a fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) algorithm and another encryption algorithm (e.g. Duncan, par. 32, 45, 62 – at least another encryption algorithm).
Regarding claim 5, Duncan discloses:
the content is inseparable from the one or more governance policies in the digital agency capsule based at least in part on performing the encapsulation process (e.g. Duncan, fig. 2; par. 28);
and the one or more governance policies are enforced for the digital agency capsule at a data level based at least in part on performing the encapsulation process (e.g. Duncan, fig. 2; par. 18).
Regarding claim 6, Duncan discloses:
further comprising generating one or more unique cryptographic keys for the digital agency capsule, wherein the one or more unique cryptographic keys are generated based at least in part on at least one of an identifier corresponding to the content owner, and the content in the digital agency capsule (e.g. Duncan, par. 101 – an encryption key phrase based on the content is generated to secure the wrapper).
Regarding claim 8, Duncan discloses:
further comprising establishing one or more communication channels via a secure communication protocol, wherein the one or more communication channels are configured for exchanging compliance and permission signaling to enable access to the digital agency capsule (e.g. Duncan, par. 89, 267 – herein methods of secure sharing, i.e. SSL and other “secure communication protocols”, e.g. email, instant messaging, etc. are provided, such communication protocols enabling access to the digital wrapper or “capsule”).
are enabled between the content provider and content user.
Regarding claim 9, Duncan discloses:
wherein the secure communication protocol includes at least one of a transport layer security (TLS) protocol and another secure communication protocol (e.g. Duncan, par. 89, 267).
Regarding claim 10, Duncan discloses:
configuring one or more access gateways to integrate the digital agency capsule with one or more external systems (e.g. Duncan, par. 92, 180; fig. 8; claim 9).
Regarding claim 11, Duncan discloses:
wherein the one or more external systems includes at least one of an application programming interface (API) system and another external system (e.g. Duncan, par. 92, 180; fig. 8; claim 9).
Regarding claim 20, Duncan discloses:
An apparatus for sending encapsulated content, the apparatus comprising:
a computing device (e.g. Duncan, fig. 7) configured to:
receive an access request to access a digital agency capsule, wherein the digital agency capsule includes a data object associated with content bound to one or more governing policies (e.g. Duncan, par. 21, 185, 267);
establish a connection between a user computing device and a content owner computing device based at least in part on receiving the request, the content owner computing device being associated with an owner of the digital agency capsule (e.g. Duncan, par. 185, 267 – content server is connected to the requesting user);
and transmit, to the user computing device, a permit signal based at least in part on establishing the connection, wherein the permit signal enables a user of the user computing device to access the content in the digital agency capsule according to the one or more governing policies (e.g. Duncan, par. 185, 267 - 275 – content server transmits a “permit signal” - wrapped content and authorization to the user to access the content).
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 4, 7, and 12 – 19 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 4, 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:
further comprising applying a cryptographic signature from the content owner to the one or more governance policies (e.g. Duncan, fig. 2; Rodriguez, par. 147, 268, 292).
Regarding claim 7, Duncan discloses the production of encryption keys and the encryption of a content wrapper. However, Duncan does not explicitly teach that the produced key are the ones used for the encryption of governance and data layers.
However, like Duncan, Rodriguez also discloses a system for creating a container or wrapping of content along with permissions. Furthermore, Rodriguez discloses that the system produces encryption keys, and uses such key to perform the encryption of the layers within the wrapper (e.g. Rodriguez, par. 130, 131, 150, 202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the teachings of Rodriquez for using the produced encryption keys to encrypt the content wrapper. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated by logical reasoning to use the keys available (i.e. the ones created within the system) to perform the encryption that is required (i.e. the encryption of the content/policy).
Thus, the combination enables:
performing, at a first layer, a first encryption process on a contract based at least in part on the one or more unique cryptographic keys, wherein the contract is configured to enforce the one or more governance polices (e.g. Rodriguez, par. 130, 131, 150, 202; e.g. Duncan, par. 101; fig. 2:114 – i.e. “a first encryption process” on enforcement policies, i.e. “a contract”, using the generated keys);
and performing, at a second layer, a second encryption process on an access agreement based at least in part on the one or more unique cryptographic (e.g. Rodriguez, par. 130, 131, 150, 202; e.g. Duncan, par. 51, 62, 91, 101; fig. 2:131 – i.e. “a second encryption process” on embedded audit information, including granted user access information, i.e. “an access agreement”, using the generated keys)
Regarding claims 12, it is a system claims, essentially corresponding to the claims above, and it is rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, 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.
Regarding claims 13 - 19, they are a system claims, essentially corresponding to the claims above, and are rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
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