Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a reply to the application filed on 7/9/2025, in which claim(s) 8-27 are pending.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 8-27 is/are newly added.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 6/3/2025 is/are accepted by The Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US 10404757 B1) in view of Chen (US 9246944 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 22 and 27, Horton discloses system comprising:
a processor; and memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed (processor and memory to stores and executable instruction [Horton; 3:18-32]), perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a caller, a data write request comprising one or more data properties of a data item, one or more provenance records, and a call context (a client submit a request to write or modify data by providing data to write/update. The request may include data, privacy policies, a request context, or any combination thereof [Horton; 8:29-59; Fig. 2-3 and associated texts]);
processing the data write request, wherein the processing comprises:
retrieving one or more rules relevant to the data write request (a request to write data may be accompanied by one or more privacy policies such as the privacy policy, security credentials associated with different users may be utilized to authorize and/or authenticate requests to store and access data [Horton; 8:29-59, 10;15-60; Fig. 2-3 and associated texts]); and
identifying capabilities of one or more storage systems to be used to store the one or more data properties (The privacy policy may also be encoded as a computer-meaningful format that corresponds to the human-readable policy as described above [Horton; 8:29-59, 10;15-60; Fig. 2-3 and associated texts]);
evaluating the one or more data properties using the one or more rules to determine whether the one or more rules [[prohibit]] the one or more data properties from being stored in the one or more storage systems (determine the writes regulation policies and perform write to storage [Horton; 8:29-59, 10;15-60; Fig. 2-3 and associated texts]); and
storing, in the one or more storage systems, at least one property in the one or more data properties, wherein the one or more rules do not prohibit the at least one property from being stored in the one or more storage systems (perform write to storage operation [Horton; 8:29-59, 10;15-60; Fig. 2-3 and associated texts]).
Horton discloses various countermeasures may be taken upon detecting that data is being accessed in an unexpected manner, such as by updating or creating a policy that prohibits the unexpected behavior, which may be specific (e.g., preventing specific types of queries) or generalized. Horton does not explicilty discloses the one or more rules to determine whether the one or more rules prohibit the one or more data properties from being stored in the one or more storage systems; however, in a related and analogous art, Chen teaches this feature.
In particular, Chen teaches data loss prevention prevent sensitive data from writing to storage, email and/or all forms of actions with respect to the confidentially risk [Chen; 6:21-38, 7:50-65,10:43-64; Fig. 2, 5 and associated texts]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horton in view of Chen with the motivation to greatly prevent data loss.
Regarding claims 9 and 23, Horton-Chen combination discloses wherein the call context is cryptographically signed by the caller and indicates at least one of: an identifier of a tenant managing the one or more storage systems; an initiation type for the data write request; or a location of the caller (location of caller [Horton; 6:54-67]).
Regarding claim 10, Horton-Chen combination discloses the system of claim 9, wherein an initiation type for the data write request indicates the data write request was initiated in response to at least one of: a user query; an administrative action by the tenant; or an automated feature of the system (user query [Horton; 6:54-67]).
Regarding claim 11, Horton-Chen combination discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the capabilities of one or more storage systems include at least one of: an encryption scheme; or a data retention policy (a particular format (e.g., encrypted under a specific cryptographic algorithm) or stored subject to removal after a fixed duration [Horton; 9:1-8]).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Horton-Chen combination discloses wherein evaluating the one or more data properties comprises comparing the one or more rules to classification data for the one or more data properties, the classification data indicating a plurality of data privacy levels (classification of data [Horton; 13:4-39; Fig. 4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 13, Horton-Chen combination discloses the system of claim 12, wherein comparing the one or more rules to the classification data comprises determining: a first type or name of the one or more data properties has a first level of sensitivity; and a second type or name of the one or more data properties has a second level of sensitivity (data sensitivity [Horton; 13:4-39; Fig. 4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claims 14 and 25, Horton-Chen combination discloses wherein: the first level of sensitivity corresponds to a public-level of access; and the second level of sensitivity corresponds to a restricted-level of access (public, sensitive, etc., [Horton; 13:4-39; Fig. 4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 15, Horton-Chen combination discloses the system of claim 8, wherein, when a rule in the one or more rules is determined to prohibit a data property in the one or more data properties from being stored in the one or more storage systems, the data property is at least one of: removed from the data item; or made inaccessible to the caller ((determine the writes regulation policies and perform write to storage [Horton; 8:29-59, 10;15-60; Fig. 2-3 and associated texts]); and
storing, in the one or more storage systems, at least one property in the one or more data properties, wherein the one or more rules do not prohibit the at least one property from being stored in the one or more storage systems (perform write to storage operation [Horton; 8:29-59, 10;15-60; Fig. 2-3 and associated texts], prevent sensitive data from writing to storage, email and/or all forms of actions with respect to the confidentially risk [Chen; 6:21-38, 7:50-65,10:43-64; Fig. 2, 5 and associated texts]. The motivation to greatly prevent data loss.
Regarding claim 16, Horton-Chen combination discloses the system of claim 15, wherein removing the data property from the data item comprises preventing the data property from being stored in the one or more storage systems without removing the data property from an underlying data item (remove data elements based on the intended use, the requestor's identity, and other criteria such as based on the detection of additional implied policies [Horton; 18:40-59; Fig. 4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 17, Horton-Chen combination discloses the system of claim 8, wherein relevancy of the one or more rules to the data write request is based on whether the one or more rules are intended to govern one or more aspects of storing data relating to at least one of: a caller, a type of caller, or a class or model of devices (type of user and semantic [Horton; 19:54-65; Fig. 4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 18, Horton-Chen combination discloses the system of claim 8, wherein relevancy of the one or more rules to the data write request is based on whether the one or more rules are intended to govern one or more aspects of storing data relating to at least one of: a location, a tenant, or a data classification (classification [Horton; 13:4-39; Fig. 4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 19, Horton-Chen combination discloses the system of claim 8, wherein relevancy of the one or more rules to the data write request is based on whether the one or more rules are intended to govern one or more aspects of storing data relating to at least one of: an encryption scheme or a data retention policy (a particular format (e.g., encrypted under a specific cryptographic algorithm) or stored subject to removal after a fixed duration [Horton; 9:1-8]).
Regarding claim 20, Horton-Chen combination discloses the system of claim 8, wherein retrieving one or more rules relevant to the data write request comprises: retrieving a first rule of the one or more rules from a first rule repository comprising rules for transferring data items within a computing environment that received the data write request; and retrieving a second rule of the one or more rules from a second rule repository comprising rules for transferring data items across a boundary of the computing environment that received the data write request (one or more rules that specify the manner in which the data element is to be stored [Horton; 20:9-63; Fig. 6 and associated texts]).
Regarding claims 21 and 26, Horton-Chen combination discloses the operations further comprising: storing, in the one or more storage systems, a status indicator indicative of whether the one or more data properties are eligible to be stored in the one or more storage systems (one or more rules that specify the manner in which the data element is to be stored, including timestamp, format, duration, access, etc., [Horton; 20:9-63; Fig. 6 and associated texts]).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http:ljwww.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. 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.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
