DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 4/28/2025. Claims 2-21 are pending. Claim 1 has been cancelled. Claims 2-21 are new. Independent claims 2, 10 and 18, and corresponding dependent claims are directed towards a method, system and non-transitory computer readable medium for processing of requests to control information stored at multiple servers.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 §§ 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/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 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,316,767. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of subject matter indicated below:
Application 19/192261
US Patent No. 12,316,767
Claim 2-21
Claim 1-20
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,074,975. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of subject matter indicated below:
Application 19/192261
US Patent No. 12,074,975
Claims 2-8
Claims 1-7
Claims 10-16
Claims 8-14
Claims 18-21
Claims 15-18
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 5-7, 13-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 5 ll. 4-5 recite the limitation “the data indicating that the client device is trustworthy” which lacks proper antecedent basis as it is unclear which “data” is being referenced (Claim 5 l. 2 “device trustworthiness data” or Claim 2 ll. 7-8 “the trustworthiness data”). For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “the trustworthiness data indicating that the client device is trustworthy”.
Claim 7 ll. 1-2 recite the limitation “the data indicating that the client device is trustworthy” which lacks proper antecedent basis as it is unclear which “data” is being referenced (Claim 5 l. 2 “device trustworthiness data” or Claim 2 ll. 7-8 “the trustworthiness data”). For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “the trustworthiness data indicating that the client device is trustworthy”.
Claim 13 ll. 3-4 recite the limitation “the data indicating that the client device is trustworthy” which lacks proper antecedent basis as it is unclear which “data” is being referenced (Claim 13 l. 1-2 “device trustworthiness data” or Claim 10 ll. 10-11 “the trustworthiness data”). For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “the trustworthiness data indicating that the client device is trustworthy”.
Claim 15 ll. 1-2 recite the limitation “the data indicating that the client device is trustworthy” which lacks proper antecedent basis as it is unclear which “data” is being referenced (Claim 13 l. 1-2 “device trustworthiness data” or Claim 10 ll. 10-11 “the trustworthiness data”). For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “the trustworthiness data indicating that the client device is trustworthy”.
Claim 21 l. 5 recites the limitation “the data indicating that the client device is trustworthy” which lacks proper antecedent basis as it is unclear which “data” is being referenced (Claim 21 l. 2 “device trustworthiness data” or Claim 18 ll. 9-10 “the trustworthiness data”). For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “the trustworthiness data indicating that the client device is trustworthy”.
Claims 6 and 14 incorporate the deficiencies of claims 5 and 13, respectively, through dependency, and are therefore also rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8-12 and 16-20 are allowed.
Claims 5-7, 13-15 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, and their dependent claims, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest, in combination, a method, system and non-transitory computer readable medium in which a device trustworthiness server verifies the trustworthiness of a client device on request by the client device by determining if an encrypted attestation token and a creation timestamp provided by the client device indicate whether the client device should be considered trusted, then sending to the client device trustworthiness data used by the client device to control user data at a relay server, in the specific manner and combination as recited in claims 2, 10 and 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gorbach et al. (US 9,647,837 B2) is related to securely filtering trust services records.
Dewan et al. (US 2022/0271955 A1) is related to asymmetric device attestation using physically unclonable functions.
Ghosh et al. (US 2020/0394640 A1) is related to attestation token verification.
Sheth et al. (US 2022/0394054 A1) is related to trustworthy device attestations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC W SHEPPERD whose telephone number is (571)270-5654. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, Alt. Friday, 7:30AM - 5:00PM, EST.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at (571)272-3880. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eric W Shepperd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights