DETAILED ACTION
The following claims are pending in this office action: 21-40
Claims 21, 31 and 40 are independent claims.
The following claims are new: 21-40
The following claims are cancelled: 1-20
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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 04/17/2025 are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 21-39 invokes 112(f). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." See MPEP 2181 Sec. I. The claim limitations use the generic placeholder unit.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (unit) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations include: 1) a content management unit configured to receive content restriction rules for content stored in the content management repository (claims 21 and 31), inject the content restriction rules into policy rules (claims 21 and 31), intercept an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository (claim 21), automatically categorizing, by the content management unit, the content at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository, intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically (claim 31); and 2) a filtering unit dynamically filter the content based on the content restriction rules (claims 21 and 31).
Claim 40 does not invoke 112(f) as the preamble of the claim clearly indicates that the content management unit and the filtering unit are instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium, and does not claim any hardware as a portion of either unit.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Both the content management unit and the filtering unit are interpreted to be performed by a processor. See para. 0037: “The operations performed by … the content management unit ... the filtering unit … performed by a processor.” However, the specification does not provide any structure aside from a processor/general purpose computer to perform the functions. It is only in the rare circumstances where the any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed. See MPEP 2181, Section II.B.
The specification provides with examples of the functions of the “content management unit” and the “filtering unit”, but not an algorithm that transforms the general-purpose computer into a special purpose computer.
For example, para. 0023 describes examples of receiving: “The user may be prompted to fill in [receive] any required fields of information concerning the content [rules] as configured by an administrator of the content management system”.
Para. 0021 describes examples of injecting: “rules can include assignment of users and user groups to content categories with a flag that designates access to content as granted or blocked … Redaction policies can automatically hide designated content when displayed to an end user.”
Para. 0024 describes examples of intercepting: “Users who open the URL in their web browsers can be navigated to a graphical user interface of the content management system.”
Para. 0037 describes examples of filtering: “para. 0040 - “the filtering … includes … redacting the content based [on the] the access privileges.”
These are all examples of software functions and does not describe how the processor may be programed with the algorithm to perform the software functions. This is further exemplified by para. 0038 of the instant application: “The method 300 may be performed by ... software ... such as software run on a general-purpose computer system or a dedicated machine.” There is no nexus or algorithm clearly linking the software/functions to a specialized machine. If there is no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification (i.e., the limitation is only supported by software and does not correspond to an algorithm and the computer or microprocessor programmed with the algorithm), the limitation should be deemed indefinite as discussed above, and the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2181, Section II.B. The requirement that a particular structure be clearly linked with the claimed function in order to qualify as corresponding structure is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and is also supported by the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, that an invention must be particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed. See MPEP 2181, Section II.C.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 21-39 the claim limitations 1) a content management unit configured to receive content restriction rules for content stored in the content management repository (claims 21 and 31), inject the content restriction rules into policy rules (claims 21 and 31), intercept an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository (claim 21), automatically categorizing, by the content management unit, the content at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository, intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically (claim 31); and 2) a filtering unit dynamically filter the content based on the content restriction rules (claims 21 and 31) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discloses a general-purpose computer without an algorithm and does not satisfy the requirement of a corresponding structure under § 112(f). Therefore, the claims 21-39 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. As both the content management unit and the filtering unit appear to be software, Examiner suggests clearly indicating that the units are instructions stored in memory executed by a processor.
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 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Schwartz et al. (US Patent No. 12,299,146) (hereinafter “Schwartz”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claims 1-20 are effectively a broader genus and uses essentially the same language to the of claims 1-20 of Schwartz.
Claims 1-20 of Schwartz recites a system that performs essentially the same functions as claims 21-40 of the instant application. For example:
Claim 21:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
A system for secure sharing of documents via a content management repository,
Claim 1: A system for secure sharing of documents via a content management repository,
the system comprising: a content management unit configured to:
Claim 1: the system comprising: a content management unit configured to:
receive content restriction rules for content stored in the content management repository;
Claim 1: receive content restriction rules for content stored in the content management repository,
inject the content restriction rules into policy rules; and
Claim 1: inject the received content restriction rules into policy rules
intercept an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository;
Claim 1:
the user input received at the content management repository at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository;
intercept an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a second user after the content is categorized automatically at the content management repository to at least one of the content categories based on the received user input
a filtering unit configured to dynamically filter the content based on the content restriction rules;
Claim 1: the content restriction rules including assignments of users and user groups to content categories designating access to the content based on content metadata
a filtering unit configured to dynamically filter the content based on the metadata specified by the content management unit
a graphical user interface configured to render the filtered content to display the filtered content to the user; and
Claim 1: a graphical user interface configured to render the filtered content to display the filtered content to the second user
a memory communicatively coupled to the content management unit.
Claim 1: a memory communicatively coupled to the content management unit.
Claim 22:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the filtering of the content includes:
Claim 2: wherein the filtering of the content includes:
determining, based on the content restriction rules, access privileges of the user; and
Claim 2: determining, based on the content restriction rules, access privileges of the user; and
redacting the content based on the access privileges.
Claim 2: redacting the content based on the access privileges.
Claim 23:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the determination of the access privileges includes associating the user with a group of users.
Claim 3: wherein the determination of the access privileges includes associating the user with a group of users.
Claim 24:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the group of users is associated with a content category based on content metadata.
Claim 4: wherein the group of users is associated with a content category based on content metadata.
Claim 25:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the content restriction rules include specifying expiration of the content for the group of users.
Claim 6: wherein the content restriction rules include specifying expiration of the content for the group of users.
Claim 26:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the content restriction rules are associated with one or more operations, the operations comprising: retention of the content, redaction of the content and granting access to a redacted version of the content, blocking the access to the content, and granting the access to the content.
Claim 7: wherein the content restriction rules are associated with one or more operations, the operations comprising: retention of the content, redaction of the content and granting access to a redacted version of the content, blocking the access to the content, and granting the access to the content.
Claim 27:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the interception of the API call for the content includes receiving a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) associated with the content in the content management repository.
Claim 8: wherein the interception of the API call for the content includes receiving a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) associated with the content in the content management repository.
Claim 28:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the URL associated with the content is shared with the user by a further user.
Claim 9: wherein the URL associated with the content is shared with the user by a further user.
Claim 29:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the content restriction rules include assignments of users and user groups to content categories designating access to the content based on content metadata, the content categories comprising the at least one category.
Claim 1: the content restriction rules including assignments of users and user groups to content categories designating access to the content based on content metadata
Claim 30:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the at least one content category designates access to the content based on content metadata comprising fields of information prefilled by the user input at the time of archiving the content.
Claim 1: content categories designating access to the content based on content metadata including fields of information prefilled by user input from a first user for selecting the users and user groups, the user input received at the content management repository at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository
Claim 5: wherein the content metadata are prefilled for the content using fields of information concerning the content.
Claim 31:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
A method for secure sharing of documents via a content management repository, the method comprising:
Claim 10: A method for secure sharing of documents via a content management repository, the method comprising:
receiving, by a content management unit, content restriction rules for content stored in the content management repository;
Claim 10: receiving, by a content management unit, content restriction rules for content stored in the content management repository,
automatically categorizing, by the content management unit, the content at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository;
Claim 10: categorizing the content automatically at the content management repository to at least one of the content categories based on the received user input;
the user input received at the content management repository at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository
injecting, by the content management unit, the content restriction rules into policy rules;
Claim 10: injecting, by the content management unit, the received content restriction rules into policy rules;
intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically;
Claim 10: intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from the second user
an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from the second user after the content is categorized
dynamically filtering, by a filtering unit, the content based on the content restriction rules; and
Claim 10: the content restriction rules including assignments of users and user groups to content categories designating access to the content based on content metadata
dynamically filtering, by a filtering unit, the content based on the metadata specified by the content management unit;
rendering the filtered content via a graphical user interface to display the filtered content to the user.
Claim 10: and rendering the filtered content via a graphical user interface to display the filtered content to the second user.
Claim 32:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the filtering of the content includes:
Claim 11: wherein the filtering of the content includes:
determining, based on the content restriction rules, access privileges of the user; and
Claim 11: determining, based on the content restriction rules, access privileges of the user; and
redacting the content based on the access privileges.
Claim 12: redacting the content based on the access privileges.
Claim 33:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the determination of the access privileges includes associating the user with a group of users.
Claim 12: wherein the determination of the access privileges includes associating the user with a group of users.
Claim 34:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the group of users is associated with a content category based on content metadata.
Claim 13: wherein the group of users is associated with a content category based on content metadata.
Claim 35:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the content restriction rules include specifying expiration of the content for the group of users.
Claim 15: wherein the content restriction rules include specifying expiration of the content for the group of users.
Claim 36:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the content restriction rules are associated with one or more operations, the operations comprising: retention of the content, redaction of the content and granting access to a redacted version of the content, blocking the access to the content, and granting the access to the content.
Claim 16; wherein the content restriction rules are associated with one or more operations, the operations comprising: retention of the content, redaction of the content and granting access to a redacted version of the content, blocking the access to the content, and granting the access to the content.
Claim 37:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the interception of the API call for the content includes receiving a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) associated with the content in the content management repository.
Claim 17: wherein the interception of the API call for the content includes receiving a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) associated with the content in the content management repository.
Claim 38:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the content restriction rules include assignments of users and user groups to content categories designating access to the content based on content metadata, the content categories comprising the at least one category.
Claim 10: the content restriction rules including assignments of users and user groups to content categories designating access to the content based on content metadata
Claim 39:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
wherein the at least one content category designates access to the content based on content metadata comprising fields of information prefilled by the user input at the time of archiving the content.
Claim 10: content categories designating access to the content based on content metadata including fields of information prefilled by user input from a first user for selecting the users and user groups, the user input received at the content management repository at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository
Claim 14: wherein the content metadata are prefilled for the content using fields of information concerning the content.
Claim 40:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,299,146
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon instructions, which when executed by at least one processor, perform steps of a method comprising:
Claim 20: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon instructions, which when executed by at least one processor, perform steps of a method comprising:
receiving, by a content management unit, content restriction rules for content stored in a content management repository;
Claim 20: receiving, by a content management unit, content restriction rules for content stored in a content management repository,
automatically categorizing, by the content management unit, the content at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository;
Claim 20: the user input received at the content management repository at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository; categorizing the content automatically to at least one of the content categories at the content management repository to at least one of the content categories based on the received user input;
injecting, by the content management unit, the received content restriction rules into policy rules;
Claim 20: injecting, by the content management unit, the received content restriction rules into policy rules;
intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically;
Claim 20: intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from the second user
dynamically filtering, by a filtering unit, the content based on the content restriction rules; and
Claim 20: the content restriction rules including assignments of users and user groups to content categories designating access to the content based on content metadata
dynamically filtering, by a filtering unit, the content based on the metadata
rendering the filtered content via a graphical user interface to display the filtered content to the user.
Claim 20: rendering the filtered content via a graphical user interface to display the filtered content to the second user.
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 21-24, 26-34 and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeRoller (US Pub. 2014/0317049) (hereinafter “DeRoller”), in view of Ginter et al. (US Patent Nol. 6,427,140) (hereinafter “Ginter”), in view of Bardhan (US Patent No. 9,430,330) (hereinafter “Bardhan”) and in view of Abdelkader et al. (US Patent No. 11,036,885) (hereinafter “Abdelkader”).
As per claim 21, a system for secure sharing of documents via a content management repository, the system comprising: ([DeRoller, para. 0021; Fig. 1] “Fig. 1 illustrates various elements that may be included in a system that implements a document workflow … as the document passes through the system [sharing of documents – see para. 0028: “The system will send the document”] … in electronic communication with one or more data storage facilities 12 such a database or databases that contain document files [content management repository]”)
a content management unit configured to: ([DeRoller, para. 0021] “The system includes a processing device 10”)
receive content restriction rules ([DeRoller, para. 0025] “The system may begin by accessing [receiving] … a document workflow file 203 [content restriction rules] with which the document is associated [for content]”; [para. 0022] “the workflow file may include rules”; [para. 0030] “the rule may require the system to determine that the content is restricted”) for content stored in the content management repository; ([para. 0021] “data storage facilities 12 [content management repository] … that contain document files [for content]”)
a filtering unit ([DeRoller, para. 0025] “Fig. 2 is a flowchart that illustrates various rules and actions that the workflow management system may implement … any such device that performs the described actions may be referred to as a … processor”) configured to dynamically filter the content based on the content restriction rules; ([para. 0026] “the processor [filtering unit] may monitor progress [filtering] of the document as it moves from person to person [dynamically]; [para. 0030] “the system may use any now or hereafter known optical character recognition … methods to identify [filter] content and determine whether the content has a format that satisfies [based on] a format criterion that corresponds to an access restriction [the content restriction rules]”)
a graphical user interface configured to render the filtered content to display the filtered content to the user; and ([DeRoller, para. 0032] “the system may redact the sensitive content 305 [filter] … to the alternate reviewer [user that views the displayed content] … when the document [filtered content] is displayed [rendering the filtered content] on a display device [a graphic user interface to display the filtered content]”)
a memory communicatively coupled to the content management unit. ([DeRoller, para. 0038; Fig. 6] “Fig. 6 depicts a block diagram of internal hardware that may be used to … implement program instructions [content management unit]”; [para. 0039] “A controller 620 [content management unit] interfaces with one or more … memory devices 625 to the system bus 600 [communicatively coupled to])
DeRoller does not clearly teach inject the received content restriction rules into policy rules; and intercept an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository.
However, Ginter teaches inject the content restriction rules into policy rules; and ([Ginter, col. 56, ln. 65 to col. 57, ln. 2; Fig. 2A] “certain “rules and controls” persist [policy rules] unchanged from critical creator 102 … other “rules and controls” [content restriction rules] are added [injected] by the distributor”; [col. 55, ln. 31-35] “the content creator 102 … specify “rules and controls” for distributing the content … can specify who has permission [a policy, making the rules from the creator policy rules]”; [col. 55, ln. 42-46] “The distributor 106 generates her own “rules and controls” that relate to usage [see col. 58, ln. 21-25: “limits … content usage … limit the number of pages or other amount of content” – a content restriction, making the rules from the distributor content restriction rules])
intercept an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user. ([Ginter, col. 82, ln. 33-37] “redirector 684 may intercept a “file open” [to the user API, and so an API call – see Fig. 10] from application 608(b), [from a user as it is a user application – see Fig. 7] determine whether the file to be opened is contained within a VDE container [for the content – see Fig. 17: the VDE container contains the content]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by DeRoller with the teachings of Ginter to include inject the content restriction rules into policy rules; and intercept an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because 1) injected rules by one group can be used by people who normally use content and control information supplied by a different group, which allows users to interact electronically without fear of incompatibilities in content control and violation of rights, and 2) without such modifications, the system would not be able to activate any functions of the distribution environment, such as enforcing the rules. (Ginter, col. 5, ln. 24-31 and col. 82, ln. 41-45)
DeRoller in view of Ginter does not clearly teach intercept an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository.
However, Bardhan teaches the content is categorized automatically, ([Bardhan, col. 8, ln. 6-10] “The storage operating system may implement [automatically, as it is done by invoking storage operation implemented by the system/computer – see col. 1, ln. 15-19] the storage files system and provide a logical/virtual representation of how the storage objects [the content – see col. 5, ln. 34-48] are organized [categorize] on the storage devices 125”) at the content management repository to at least one content category ([col. 18, ln. 1-5] “The backup session may be repeated for other server systems … As such, a storage system may receive and store backup data … for one or more server systems, and may be considered a repository”) based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository. ([Col. 14, ln. 54-62] “Relationship metadata included in the backup session [at a time of archiving the content] may describe a relationship between the two computer systems [categorize the content] … server system and storage system … involved in the backup session … For instance, the relationship metadata may specify [categorize] that the backup session is for backing up data [content] of a particular server system (having server system identifier X) to a particular storage system (having storage system identifier Y)”; [col. 9, ln. 3-4] “input component 398 may be used, for example, by an administrator inputting or modifying [a user input] specifications for metadata [at a time of archiving the content as the relationship metadata is included in the backup session]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by DeRoller in view of Ginter with the teachings of Bardhan to include the content is categorized automatically at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because typical storage systems manage backup data and use separate structures to manage categorize the content, and categorizing the content in accordance to a predetermined configuration or by user input would be an efficient method that does not result in substantial additional use of storage resources. (Bardhan, col. 2, ln. 45-52)
DeRoller in view of Ginter and Bardhan does not clearly teach intercept an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically at the content management repository.
However, Abdelkader teaches intercept an Application Programming Interface (API) call ([Abdelkader, col. 11, ln. 8-19; Fig. 11] “the end user 301 can provide a form POST 311 to the app front end 303 ... The system 305 proxy 325 can intercept the API Call and perform a data transformation on sensitive fields such as SSN, ABA, etc”) for the content from a user ([col. 10, ln. 37 to col. 11, ln. 8; Fig. 11] “The system can include an end user 301 who can access the system through a web browser such as Google Chrome ... The App may have a front end 303 provided by a markup language such as an HTML standard such as HTML5 that presents content ... the end user 301 can provide a form POST 311 to the app front end 303 [API call for the content] ... The system 305 can then transmit the HTTP Response 339 [content] which can be transmitted through the App front end 303 to the end user 301”) after the content is categorized automatically ([col. 6, ln. 29 to col. 7, ln. 20; Fig. 3] “With reference to FIG. 3, an example of a basic operation workflow diagram for the system is illustrated ... when data is received during the request phase ... the system ... perform ... pre operations 168 [the content is categorized automatically] ... post operations 170 [after the content is categorized automatically] ... The pre operations 158, 168 include the system's identification of elements [categorized automatically] in the data payload [content] that the system is configured to operate on”) at the content management repository. ([Col. 12, ln. 12-19] “With reference to FIG. 13, the inventive system ... include ... a vault secure storage database 361 [content management repository]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by DeRoller in view of Ginter and Bardhan with the teachings of Abdelkader to include intercept an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically at the content management repository. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a modification can provide quick and transparent integration with minimal code change. (Abdelkader, col. 1, ln. 41-50)
As per claim 22, DeRoller in view of Ginter, Bardhan and Abdelkader teaches claim 21.
DeRoller also teaches wherein the filtering of the content includes: determining, based on the content restriction rules, access privileges of the user; and ([DeRoller, para. 0031] “the system may determine … whether the alternate person holds a role that is permitted to access content at that level [access privileges] … the system’s rules may require [based on the content restriction rules] that the reviewer be a management-level”)
redacting the content based on the access privileges. ([DeRoller, para. 0032] “if the system determines that the alternate reviewer is not authorized [based on the access privileges] … the system may redact the sensitive content”)
As per claim 23, DeRoller in view of Ginter, Bardhan and Abdelkader teaches claim 22.
DeRoller also teaches wherein the determination of the access privileges includes associating the user with a group of users. ([DeRoller, para. 0031] “the system may determine … whether the alternate person holds a role that is permitted to access content at that level [determine access privileges] … As an example, to access salary information … rules may require that the reviewer … be associated with [associating the user] a corporate human resources department [a group of users]”)
As per claim 24, DeRoller in view of Ginter, Bardhan and Abdelkader teaches claim 23.
DeRoller also teaches wherein the group of users is associated with a content category ([DeRoller, para. 0031] “As an example, to access salary information [associated with a content category] … rules [content restriction rules/workflow file] may require that the reviewer … be associated with a corporate human resources department [the group of users]”) based on content metadata. ([Para. 0021] “A workflow file may be … integral with the document file, such as in metadata”; as the workflow file/rules are metadata, and the rules/workflow file associates the group of users with a content category, the association is based on the metadata)
As per claim 26, DeRoller in view of Ginter, Bardhan and Abdelkader teaches claim 21.
DeRoller also teaches wherein the content restriction rules are associated with one or more operations, the operations comprising: retention of the content, ([DeRoller, para. 0032] “If the system determines [based on/associated with the content restriction rule – see para. 0030-0031 as explained above] that the alternate reviewer is authorized to access the restricted content, the system may provide that person with access to the document 217, including the restricted content [retention of the content]”) redaction of the content and granting access to a redacted version of the content, ([para. 0032] “if the system determines that the alternate reviewer is not authorized to access the restricted content, then system will modify the document … by redacting it … when the document is displayed [granting access to a redacted version]”) blocking the access to the content, ([para. 0034] “the system may return the document to the original … person”; returning the document blocks access for the second person to access the content) and granting the access to the content. ([para. 0032] “the system may provide that person with access to the document 217”)
As per claim 27, DeRoller in view of Ginter, Bardhan and Abdelkader teaches claim 21.
DeRoller does not clearly teach wherein the interception of the API call for the content includes receiving a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) associated with the content in the content management repository.
However, Ginter teaches wherein the interception of the API call for the content includes receiving a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) associated with the content in the content management repository. ([Ginter, col. 289, ln. 33-41] “If an end user requests delivery of content [the interception of the API call, as this is a “file open” call from the user application] that is not stored in content storage, the VDE repository may locate [receive]… the network address where the content may be located … a URL”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by DeRoller with the teachings of Ginter to include wherein the interception of the API call for the content includes receiving a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) associated with the content in the content management repository. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so will result in more efficient access to electronic information that fulfills the needs of electronic information owners, distributors, and users. (Ginter, col. 3, ln. 38-48)
As per claim 28, DeRoller in view of Ginter, Bardhan and Abdelkader teaches claim 8.
DeRoller also teaches wherein the URL associated with the content is shared with the user by a further user. ([DeRoller, para. 0026] “Sending [shared] the document from person [the user] to person [a further user] may occur by … sending each person an alert that the document [associated with the content] may be viewed from a central location, such as via a browser [a URL]”)
As per claim 29, DeRoller in view of Ginter, Bardhan and Abdelkader teaches claim 21.
DeRoller also teaches wherein the content restriction rules ([DeRoller, para. 0022] “the workflow file ... include rules”; [para. 0027-0028] “rules, such as ... An access restriction ... if the document includes sensitive content”) include assignments of users and user groups to content categories designating access to the content ([para. 0031] “the system may determine a level of the restriction for the content [content categories designating access to the content], and it may determine [assign] whether the ... person [users and user groups] holds a role that is permitted to access content at that level ... to access salary information [access to the content] the system's rules may require that the reviewer be a management-level employee, or that the reviewer be associated with a corporate human resources department”) based on content metadata, ([Para. 0021] “A workflow file may be … integral with the document file, such as in metadata”; as the workflow file/rules are metadata, and the rules/workflow file associates the users with a content category, the assignment is based on the metadata) the content categories comprising the at least one category. ([Para. 0031] As explained above, assigning HR resources to salary information is assignment of a group to at least one category)
As per claim 30, DeRoller in view of Ginter, Bardhan and Abdelkader teaches claim 21.
DeRoller also teaches wherein the at least one content category designates access to the content ([DeRoller, para. 0031] “to access salary information the system's rules ... require [designates access to the content] that the reviewer be a management-level employee [at least one content category]”) based on content metadata, ([para. 0021] “A workflow file may be … integral with the document file, such as in metadata”; as the workflow file/rules are metadata, and the rules/workflow file associates the users with a content category, the assignment is based on the metadata) the content metadata comprising fields of information prefilled for the content ([para. 0025] “The system may begin by accessing … a document workflow file [metadata – see para. 0021] … performed by … a processor”; as the system begins a document workflow file that is performed, the document workflow file has items for the performance, and so is prefilled) using fields of information concerning the content. ([para. 0029] “the document includes a template with certain data fields [prefilled using fields of information] … to determine whether the document includes any content with an access restriction [concerning the content]”; as the metadata determine whether the document includes any restricted content [see para. 0030-0031 as explained above], both the metadata/workflow file and the content/document are using the fields of information)
As per claim 31, DeRoller teaches a method for secure sharing of documents via a content management repository, the method comprising: ([DeRoller, para. 0004] “In an embodiment, a method for managing a document workflow [secure sending of document via a data storage facility that contains document files – Fig. 1 and para. 0021] comprises”)
receiving, by a content management unit, ([DeRoller, para. 0021] “The system includes a processing device 10 [content management unit]”) content restriction rules ([para. 0025] “The system may begin by accessing [receiving] … a document workflow file 203 [content restriction rules] with which the document is associated [for content]”; [para. 0022] “the workflow file may include rules”; [para. 0030] “the rule may require the system to determine that the content is restricted”) for content stored in the content management repository; ([para. 0021] “data storage facilities 12 [content management repository] … that contain document files [for content]”)
dynamically filtering, by a filtering unit, the content based on the content restriction rules; and ([DeRoller, para. 0025] “Fig. 2 is a flowchart that illustrates various rules and actions that the workflow management system may implement … any such device that performs the described actions may be referred to as a … processor”; [para. 0026] “the processor [filtering unit] may monitor progress [filtering] of the document as it moves from person to person [dynamically]; [para. 0030] “the system may use any now or hereafter known optical character recognition … methods to identify [filter] content and determine whether the content has a format that satisfies [based on] a format criterion that corresponds to an access restriction [the content restriction rules]”)
rendering the filtered content via a graphical user interface to display the filtered content to the user. ([DeRoller, para. 0032] “the system may redact the sensitive content 305 [filter] … to the alternate reviewer [user that views the displayed content] … when the document [filtered content] is displayed [rendering the filtered content] on a display device [via graphic user interface to display the filtered content]”)
DeRoller does not clearly teach automatically categorizing, by the content management unit, the content at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository; injecting, by the content management unit, the received content restriction rules into policy rules; and intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically.
However, Ginter teaches injecting, by the content management unit, ([Ginter, col. 63, ln. 23-26] “Each VDE node or other electronic appliance 600 in the preferred embodiment may include one or more SPUs 500 [content management unit] … used to perform all secure processing for VDE 100”) the content restriction rules into policy rules; and ([col. 56, ln. 65 to col. 57, ln. 2; Fig. 2A] “certain “rules and controls” persist [policy rules] unchanged from critical creator 102 … other “rules and controls” [content restriction rules] are added [injected] by the distributor”; [col. 55, ln. 31-35] “the content creator 102 … specify “rules and controls” for distributing the content … can specify who has permission [a policy, making the rules from the creator policy rules]”; [col. 55, ln. 42-46] “The distributor 106 generates her own “rules and controls” that relate to usage [see col. 58, ln. 21-25: “limits … content usage … limit the number of pages or other amount of content” – a content restriction, making the rules from the distributor content restriction rules])
intercepting, by the content management unit, ([Ginter, col. 63, ln. 23-26] “Each VDE node or other electronic appliance 600 in the preferred embodiment may include one or more SPUs 500 [content management unit] … used to perform all secure processing for VDE 100”) an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user. ([col. 82, ln. 33-37] “redirector 684 may intercept a “file open” [to the user API, and so an API call – see Fig. 10] from application 608(b), [from a user as it is a user application – see Fig. 7] determine whether the file to be opened is contained within a VDE container [for the content – see Fig. 17: the VDE container contains the content]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by DeRoller with the teachings of Ginter to include injecting, by the content management unit, the content restriction rules into policy rules; and intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because 1) injected rules by one group can be used by people who normally use content and control information supplied by a different group, which allows users to interact electronically without fear of incompatibilities in content control and violation of rights, and 2) without such modifications, the system would not be able to activate any functions of the distribution environment, such as enforcing the rules. (Ginter, col. 5, ln. 24-31 and col. 82, ln. 41-45)
DeRoller in view of Ginter does not clearly teach automatically categorizing, by the content management unit, the content at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository; and intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically.
However, Bardhan teaches automatically categorizing, by the content management unit, the content ([Bardhan, col. 8, ln. 6-10] “The storage operating system may implement [automatically, as it is done by invoking storage operation implemented by the system/computer – see col. 1, ln. 15-19] the storage files system and provide a logical/virtual representation of how the storage objects [the content – see col. 5, ln. 34-48] are organized [categorize] on the storage devices 125”) at the content management repository to at least one content category ([col. 18, ln. 1-5] “The backup session may be repeated for other server systems … As such, a storage system may receive and store backup data … for one or more server systems, and may be considered a repository”) based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository. ([Col. 14, ln. 54-62] “Relationship metadata included in the backup session [at a time of archiving the content] may describe a relationship between the two computer systems [categorize the content] … server system and storage system … involved in the backup session … For instance, the relationship metadata may specify [categorize] that the backup session is for backing up data [content] of a particular server system (having server system identifier X) to a particular storage system (having storage system identifier Y)”; [col. 9, ln. 3-4] “input component 398 may be used, for example, by an administrator inputting or modifying [a user input] specifications for metadata [at a time of archiving the content as the relationship metadata is included in the backup session]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by DeRoller in view of Ginter with the teachings of Bardhan to include automatically categorizing, by the content management unit, the content at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because typical storage systems manage backup data and use separate structures to manage categorize the content, and categorizing the content in accordance to a predetermined configuration or by user input would be an efficient method that does not result in substantial additional use of storage resources. (Bardhan, col. 2, ln. 45-52)
DeRoller in view of Ginter and Bardhan does not clearly teach intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically.
However, Abdelkader teaches intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call ([Abdelkader, col. 11, ln. 8-19; Fig. 11] “the end user 301 can provide a form POST 311 to the app front end 303 ... The system 305 proxy 325 can intercept the API Call and perform a data transformation on sensitive fields such as SSN, ABA, etc”) for the content from a user ([col. 10, ln. 37 to col. 11, ln. 8; Fig. 11] “The system can include an end user 301 who can access the system through a web browser such as Google Chrome ... The App may have a front end 303 provided by a markup language such as an HTML standard such as HTML5 that presents content ... the end user 301 can provide a form POST 311 to the app front end 303 [API call for the content] ... The system 305 can then transmit the HTTP Response 339 [content] which can be transmitted through the App front end 303 to the end user 301”) after the content is categorized automatically ([col. 6, ln. 29 to col. 7, ln. 20; Fig. 3] “With reference to FIG. 3, an example of a basic operation workflow diagram for the system is illustrated ... when data is received during the request phase ... the system ... perform ... pre operations 168 [the content is categorized automatically] ... post operations 170 [after the content is categorized automatically] ... The pre operations 158, 168 include the system's identification of elements [categorized automatically] in the data payload [content] that the system is configured to operate on”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by DeRoller in view of Ginter and Bardhan with the teachings of Abdelkader to include intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a modification can provide quick and transparent integration with minimal code change. (Abdelkader, col. 1, ln. 41-50)
As per claim 32, the claim language is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 22. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 22.
As per claim 33, the claim language is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 23. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 23.
As per claim 34, the claim language is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 24. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 24.
As per claim 36, the claim language is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 26. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 26.
As per claim 37, the claim language is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 26. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 26.
As per claim 38, the claim language is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 29. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 29.
As per claim 39, the claim language is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 30. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 30.
As per claim 40, DeRoller teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon instructions, which when executed by at least one processor, perform steps of a method comprising: ([DeRoller, para. 0010] “Steps may be implemented by a system that includes one or more processors, and instructions that are configured to instruct the processors to perform the steps when executed”; [para. 0038; Fig. 6] “Fig. 6 depicts a block diagram of internal hardware that may be used to … implement program instructions according to an embodiment”; [para. 0040] “Program instructions may be stored in the ROM 610 and/or the RAM 615.)
receiving, by a content management unit, ([DeRoller, para. 0021] “The system includes a processing device 10 [content management unit]”) content restriction rules ([para. 0025] “The system may begin by accessing [receiving] … a document workflow file 203 [content restriction rules] with which the document is associated [for content]”; [para. 0022] “the workflow file may include rules”; [para. 0030] “the rule may require the system to determine that the content is restricted”) for content stored in the content management repository; ([para. 0021] “data storage facilities 12 [content management repository] … that contain document files [for content]”)
dynamically filtering, by a filtering unit, the content based on the content restriction rules; and ([DeRoller, para. 0025] “Fig. 2 is a flowchart that illustrates various rules and actions that the workflow management system may implement … any such device that performs the described actions may be referred to as a … processor”; [para. 0026] “the processor [filtering unit] may monitor progress [filtering] of the document as it moves from person to person [dynamically]; [para. 0030] “the system may use any now or hereafter known optical character recognition … methods to identify [filter] content and determine whether the content has a format that satisfies [based on] a format criterion that corresponds to an access restriction [the content restriction rules]”)
rendering the filtered content via a graphical user interface to display the filtered content to the user. ([DeRoller, para. 0032] “the system may redact the sensitive content 305 [filter] … to the alternate reviewer [user that views the displayed content] … when the document [filtered content] is displayed [rendering the filtered content] on a display device [via graphic user interface to display the filtered content]”)
DeRoller does not clearly teach automatically categorizing, by the content management unit, the content at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository; injecting, by the content management unit, the content restriction rules into policy rules; and intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically.
However, Ginter teaches injecting, by the content management unit, ([Ginter, col. 63, ln. 23-26] “Each VDE node or other electronic appliance 600 in the preferred embodiment may include one or more SPUs 500 [content management unit] … used to perform all secure processing for VDE 100”) the content restriction rules into policy rules; and ([col. 56, ln. 65 to col. 57, ln. 2; Fig. 2A] “certain “rules and controls” persist [policy rules] unchanged from critical creator 102 … other “rules and controls” [content restriction rules] are added [injected] by the distributor”; [col. 55, ln. 31-35] “the content creator 102 … specify “rules and controls” for distributing the content … can specify who has permission [a policy, making the rules from the creator policy rules]”; [col. 55, ln. 42-46] “The distributor 106 generates her own “rules and controls” that relate to usage [see col. 58, ln. 21-25: “limits … content usage … limit the number of pages or other amount of content” – a content restriction, making the rules from the distributor content restriction rules])
intercepting, by the content management unit, ([Ginter, col. 63, ln. 23-26] “Each VDE node or other electronic appliance 600 in the preferred embodiment may include one or more SPUs 500 [content management unit] … used to perform all secure processing for VDE 100”) an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user. ([col. 82, ln. 33-37] “redirector 684 may intercept a “file open” [to the user API, and so an API call – see Fig. 10] from application 608(b), [from a user as it is a user application – see Fig. 7] determine whether the file to be opened is contained within a VDE container [for the content – see Fig. 17: the VDE container contains the content]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by DeRoller with the teachings of Ginter to include injecting, by the content management unit, the content restriction rules into policy rules; and intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because 1) injected rules by one group can be used by people who normally use content and control information supplied by a different group, which allows users to interact electronically without fear of incompatibilities in content control and violation of rights, and 2) without such modifications, the system would not be able to activate any functions of the distribution environment, such as enforcing the rules. (Ginter, col. 5, ln. 24-31 and col. 82, ln. 41-45)
DeRoller in view of Ginter does not clearly teach automatically categorizing, by the content management unit, the content at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository; and intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically.
However, Bardhan teaches automatically categorizing, by the content management unit, the content ([Bardhan, col. 8, ln. 6-10] “The storage operating system may implement [automatically, as it is done by invoking storage operation implemented by the system/computer – see col. 1, ln. 15-19] the storage files system and provide a logical/virtual representation of how the storage objects [the content – see col. 5, ln. 34-48] are organized [categorize] on the storage devices 125”) at the content management repository to at least one content category ([col. 18, ln. 1-5] “The backup session may be repeated for other server systems … As such, a storage system may receive and store backup data … for one or more server systems, and may be considered a repository”) based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository. ([Col. 14, ln. 54-62] “Relationship metadata included in the backup session [at a time of archiving the content] may describe a relationship between the two computer systems [categorize the content] … server system and storage system … involved in the backup session … For instance, the relationship metadata may specify [categorize] that the backup session is for backing up data [content] of a particular server system (having server system identifier X) to a particular storage system (having storage system identifier Y)”; [col. 9, ln. 3-4] “input component 398 may be used, for example, by an administrator inputting or modifying [a user input] specifications for metadata [at a time of archiving the content as the relationship metadata is included in the backup session]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by DeRoller in view of Ginter with the teachings of Bardhan to include automatically categorizing, by the content management unit, the content at the content management repository to at least one content category based on user input received at a time of archiving the content into the content management repository. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because typical storage systems manage backup data and use separate structures to manage categorize the content, and categorizing the content in accordance to a predetermined configuration or by user input would be an efficient method that does not result in substantial additional use of storage resources. (Bardhan, col. 2, ln. 45-52)
DeRoller in view of Ginter and Bardhan does not clearly teach intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically.
However, Abdelkader teaches intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call ([Abdelkader, col. 11, ln. 8-19; Fig. 11] “the end user 301 can provide a form POST 311 to the app front end 303 ... The system 305 proxy 325 can intercept the API Call and perform a data transformation on sensitive fields such as SSN, ABA, etc”) for the content from a user ([col. 10, ln. 37 to col. 11, ln. 8; Fig. 11] “The system can include an end user 301 who can access the system through a web browser such as Google Chrome ... The App may have a front end 303 provided by a markup language such as an HTML standard such as HTML5 that presents content ... the end user 301 can provide a form POST 311 to the app front end 303 [API call for the content] ... The system 305 can then transmit the HTTP Response 339 [content] which can be transmitted through the App front end 303 to the end user 301”) after the content is categorized automatically ([col. 6, ln. 29 to col. 7, ln. 20; Fig. 3] “With reference to FIG. 3, an example of a basic operation workflow diagram for the system is illustrated ... when data is received during the request phase ... the system ... perform ... pre operations 168 [the content is categorized automatically] ... post operations 170 [after the content is categorized automatically] ... The pre operations 158, 168 include the system's identification of elements [categorized automatically] in the data payload [content] that the system is configured to operate on”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by DeRoller in view of Ginter and Bardhan with the teachings of Abdelkader to include intercepting, by the content management unit, an Application Programming Interface (API) call for the content from a user after the content is categorized automatically. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a modification can provide quick and transparent integration with minimal code change. (Abdelkader, col. 1, ln. 41-50)
Claims 25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeRoller in view of Ginter, Bardhan and Abdelkader as applied in claims 23 and 33 above and further in view of Kidd (US Patent No. 10,942,991) (hereinafter “Kidd”).
As per claim 25, DeRoller in view of Ginter, Bardhan and Abdelkader teaches claim 23.
DeRoller in view of Ginter, Bardhan and Abdelkader does not clearly teach wherein the content restriction rules include specifying expiration of the content for the group of users.
However, Kidd teaches wherein the content restriction rules include specifying expiration of the content for the group of users. ([Kidd, col. 11, ln. 1-3] “content … restrictions can be assigned … including an expiration date for approval … of the content”; [col. 60, ln. 59-62] “Embodiments enable … denying [restrictions rules] specified members of the group [for the group of users] permission to use protected resources and assets”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by DeRoller in view of Ginter, Bardhan and Abdelkader with the teachings of Kidd to include wherein the content restriction rules include specifying expiration of the content for the group of users. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this would be useful to users who wishes to temporarily approve access to content, and don’t want to have to remember to remove them once the access should be revoked. (Kidd, col. 20, ln. 44-49)
As per claim 15, the claim language is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mikhailov et al. (US Pub. 2018/0048604) discloses a entering a user input to categorize messages into subjects and determining that messages containing certain subjects are unauthorized and reacting contents corresponding the unauthorized subject.
Dobier et al. (US Patent No. 10,657,320) discloses that in response to a document display request or a triggering event a system of record provides available information to prefill eForm fields, where the prefilling includes outputting document metadata and associated metadata.
Skinner et al. (US Pub. 2020/0042837) discloses a user may provide a URL to other users which may request their browser to navigate to the URL to retrieve the redacted version of the shared content from a remote server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHE LIU whose telephone number is (571) 272-3634. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached on (571) 272-3862. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ZHE LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights