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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed on 06/25/2026
Claims 2-21 is pending. Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered and addressed. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims were fully considered and are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. In light of Applicant’s argument, the 35 112 rejection is withdrawn.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2, 10 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 13 of U.S. Patent No 11301464. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 2-3, 5, 10-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over James et al (hereinafter James) US Patent NO 11238049 in view of Michael Cook (hereinafter Cook) US Publication No. 20150193638.
As per claim 2, James teaches:
A method, comprising:
obtaining permission to perform an operation on at least a portion of a data corpora, the data corpora comprising a first data corpus and a second data corpus;
(Column 15, lines 47-60 and Column 18. Lines 51-60 and column 22, lines 1-11and Column 65, lines 30-36, query data access is based on authorizations for different datasets (first and second))
submitting a search query to search the data corpora;
(Fig. 16, 22 and Column 15, lines 18-60)
and in response to the search query satisfying a first rule associated with the first data corpus and not satisfying a second rule associated with the second data corpus, and the permission satisfying a data management requirement,
(Column 27, 50-53 and Column 57, lines 26-36 and Column 59, lines 11-16 and Column 62, lines 19-29 and Column 67, lines 46-53 and Column 121, lines 310, wherein a rule dictates which dataset the query is authorized to access and collection dataset may not make its data searchable because they restricted (query not satisfying access rule to restricted data (second data))
obtaining transformed search results associated with the first data corpus and not associated with the second data corpus, wherein the transformed search results are transformed relative to the data corpora.
(Column 27, 50-53 and Column 57, lines 26-36 and Column 62, lines 19-29, wherein data not to be searched/restricted data (second data) is filtered out) and (Column 43, lines 15-27 and Column 58, lines 8-26, wherein search results are transformed/aggregated)
James teaches filtering data based on host/source/tenant (Column 151, lines 19-37) but does not explicitly teach filtering criteria based on authorization/permission to the data, however in analogous art or data management, Cook teaches:
obtaining transformed search results associated with the first data corpus and not associated with the second data corpus, wherein the transformed search results are transformed relative to the data corpora, such that the transformed search results exclude data of the second data corpus.
(Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0005], [0007], [0017], [0022] and [0043]-[0044], wherein shared data is excluded based on permission criteria)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine James and Cook by incorporating the teaching of Cook into the method of James. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Cook into the system of James for the purpose of retrieving data based on permission and rule and ensuring the protection of sensitive data.
As per claim 3, James and Cook teach:
The method of claim 2, wherein:
the permission is obtained in response to the submission of the search query;
(Column 58, lines 36-46 and Column 59, lines 11-21 and Column 122, lines 11-17)(James)
And the permission is obtained from a data management system based on the search query being associated with a requesting entity that is granted access to the portion of the data corpora.
(Column 58, lines 36-46 and Column 59, lines 11-21 and Column 122, lines 11-17)(James)
As per claim 5, James and Cook teach:
The method of claim 2, wherein the first data corpus is obtained from a first data provider and the second data corpus is obtained from a second data provider.
(Column 15, lines 47-67 and Column 30, lines 36-44) )(James)
Claims 10-11 are non-transitory computer-readable medium claims respectively corresponding to method claims 2-3 and they are rejected under the same rational as claims 2-3.
Claims 16-17 are system claims respectively corresponding to method claims 2-3 and they are rejected under the same rational as claims 2-3.
Claims 4 and 7-8, 12, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over James and Cook in view of Vishnoi et al (hereinafter Vishnoi) US Patent No. 11573973.
As per claim 4, James and Cook do not explicitly teach data corpora is disposed in a clean room;
And the data corpora in the clean room is anonymized relative to the search query by having personally identifiable information removed, however in analogous of data management, Vishnoi teaches:
data corpora is disposed in a clean room;
(Column 7, lines 43-55)
And the data corpora in the clean room is anonymized relative to the search query by having personally identifiable information removed.
(Column 11, lines 49-58)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine James and Cook and Vishnoi by incorporating the teaching of Vishnoi into the method of James and Cook. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Vishnoi into the system of James and Cook for the purpose of leveraging data collaboration environment with improved data security.
As per claim 7, James and Cook do not explicitly teach data corpora is disposed in a clean room;
And the data corpora in the clean room is anonymized relative to the search query by having personally identifiable information removed, however in analogous of data management, Vishnoi teaches:
data management requirement is one or more regulations associated with a clean room and the data corpora.
(Column 7, lines 43-55 and Column 11, lines 49-58)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine James and Cook and Vishnoi by incorporating the teaching of Vishnoi into the method of James and Cook. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Vishnoi into the system of James and Cook for the purpose of leveraging data collaboration environment with improved data security.
As per claim 8, James and Cook and Vishnoi teach:
The method of claim 7, wherein the data management requirement is enforced relative to the data corpora and the transformed search results by a third-party.
(Fig. 1 and Column 6, lines 62-67 and Column 43, lines 15-27 and Column 58, lines 8-26, wherein search results are transformed/aggregated by data intake)(James)
Claim 12 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 4 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Claim 18 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 4 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Claim 14 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the combination of method claims 7 and 8 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 7 and 8.
Claim 20 is a system claim corresponding to the combination of method claims 7 and 8 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 7 and 8.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over James and Cook in view of Thimmegowda et al (hereinafter Thimmegowda) US Patent No. 11916929.
As per claim 6, James and Cook teach:
first rule is established by the first data provider relative to the first data corpus;
Abstract and paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0017])(Cook)
James and Cook teach merging policy based on tenant identifier (Column 39, lines 4-41 and Column 93, lines 50-57) but does not explicitly teach first rule is established by the first data provider relative to the first data corpus; the second rule is established by the second data provider relative to the second data corpus, however in analogous art of data management, Thimmegowda teaches
the second rule is established by the second data provider relative to the second data corpus; the first rule comprises a first minimum aggregation rule;
(Column 48, lines 62-67 and Column 49, lines 10-29 and Column 71, lines 62-67Column 120, lines 1-13)
and the second rule comprises a second minimum aggregation rule, where the second minimum aggregation rule differs from the first minimum aggregation rule.
(Column 48, lines 62-67 and Column 49, lines 10-29 and Column 71, lines 62-67Column 120, lines 1-13)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine James and Cook and Thimmegowda by incorporating the teaching of Thimmegowda into the method of James and Cook. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Thimmegowda into the system of James and Cook for the purpose of managing shared data based on tenant preference and improving data analysis.
As per claim 13, James and Cook teach:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein:
the first data corpus is obtained from a first data provider;
(Column 15, lines 47-67 and Column 30, lines 36-44)(James)
the second data corpus is obtained from a second data provider;
(Column 15, lines 47-67 and Column 30, lines 36-44)(James)
James and Cook teach merging policy based on tenant identifier (Column 39, lines 4-41 and Column 93, lines 50-57) but does not explicitly teach first rule is established by the first data provider relative to the first data corpus; the second rule is established by the second data provider relative to the second data corpus, however in analogous art of data management, Thimmegowda teaches:
the first rule is established by the first data provider relative to the first data corpus;
(Column 48, lines 62-67 and Column 49, lines 10-29 and Column 71, lines 62-67Column 120, lines 1-13)
the second rule is established by the second data provider relative to the second data corpus;
(Column 48, lines 62-67 and Column 49, lines 10-29 and Column 71, lines 62-67Column 120, lines 1-13)
the first rule comprises a first minimum aggregation rule;
(Column 48, lines 62-67 and Column 49, lines 10-29 and Column 71, lines 62-67Column 120, lines 1-13)
and the second rule comprises a second minimum aggregation rule, where the second minimum aggregation rule differs from the first minimum aggregation rule.
(Column 48, lines 62-67 and Column 49, lines 10-29 and Column 71, lines 62-67Column 120, lines 1-13)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine James and Cook and Thimmegowda by incorporating the teaching of Thimmegowda into the method of James and Cook. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Thimmegowda into the system of James and Cook for the purpose of managing shared data based on tenant preference and improving data analysis.
Claim 19 is a system claim corresponding to the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 13 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 13.
Claims 9, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over James and Cook in view of Fawaz et al (hereinafter Fawaz) US Publication No. 20150286827.
As per claim 9, James and Cook teach:
The method of claim 2, wherein:
the transformed search results are transformed based on the first rule;
(Column 43, lines 15-27 and Column 58, lines 8-26)(James)
James and Cook do not explicitly teach and the transformed search results are fuzzed based on a data type associated with the transformed search results, however in analogous art of data management, Fawaz teaches:
and the transformed search results are fuzzed based on a data type associated with the transformed search results.
(Paragraph [0044], wherein based on data type, an amount of noise is added to the search result which is the fuzzing as recited in paragraph [0045] of the instant specification)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine James and Cook and Fawaz by incorporating the teaching of Fawaz into the method of James and Cook. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Fawaz into the system of James and Cook for the purpose of ensuring data privacy.
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 9 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 9.
Claim 21 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 9 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 9.
Conclusion
As necessitated by amendment, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. 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.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 07/06/2026
Prosecution Insights