DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to a Continuation patent application filed by Applicant on 06/03/2025.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted by applicant on 07/02/2025, 10/07/2025, 02/18/2026, and 07/13/2026, have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Double Patenting
No conflicting application or issued patent was identified that would require a rejection under double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The present application, as claimed, satisfies the requirements for patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1–3, 6–7, 11–12, 14–16, 19–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds (US 2018/0210936 A1, published Jul. 26, 2018) in view of Nadler (US 2020/0117827 A1, published Apr. 16, 2020).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Reynolds discloses: a computerized method, performed by a computing system having one or more hardware computer processors and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage device storing software instructions executable by the computing system to perform the computerized method comprising: providing a data exploration workflow enabling a user to filter electronic data assets based on summarized information associated with the electronic data assets (restricted private dataset can be searched (the recited filtered) using search terms in a search field based on its associated metadata describing the dataset attributes. Reynolds ¶ 50.), wherein the underlying data items of the electronic data assets are not exposed to the user during the filtering process (the restricted classification makes the private dataset inaccessible (without authorization), but associated metadata describing dataset attributes of the private dataset being accessible. Reynolds ¶ 50.).
Reynolds does not disclose: receiving a purpose-based access request for one or more electronic data assets identified via the data exploration workflow for a specified purpose; determining authorization for providing access to the requested one or more electronic data assets for the specified purpose; generating an investigation dataset comprising data items authorized for the specified purpose; and providing access to the investigation dataset.
However, Nadler does disclose: receiving a purpose-based access request for one or more electronic data assets identified via the data exploration workflow for a specified purpose (requesting purpose-based access to data. Nadler ¶ 38.); determining authorization for providing access to the requested one or more electronic data assets for the specified purpose (only entities that are certified for using the data for authorized purposes are provided access. Nadler ¶ 38.); generating an investigation dataset comprising data items authorized for the specified purpose; and providing access to the investigation dataset (the data which is reached and obtained by the link is used for processing related only to the specific authorized purpose. Nadler ¶ 77.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective collaboration and dataset consolidation platform of Reynolds with using purpose-based access to generate specific purpose authorized dataset based upon the teachings of Nadler. The motivation being to protect sensitive data from being misused for unauthorized purposes. Nadler ¶ 70.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Reynolds in view of Nadler discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively, wherein the summarized information associated with the electronic data assets includes aggregated statistical data derived from the electronic data assets (associated dataset metadata attributes used in filtering is generated from statistical calculations from various characteristic values of the dataset. Reynolds ¶¶ 56–57.).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Reynolds in view of Nadler discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively, wherein the data exploration workflow includes graphical visualizations that dynamically update based on filtering criteria applied by the user (Reynolds Figure 1 and ¶ 47.).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Reynolds in view of Nadler discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively, wherein the summarized information includes sensitivity levels associated with the electronic data assets, and the data exploration workflow displays the sensitivity levels to the user to aid in filtering the assets (Reynolds Figure 9, elements 941, 942, 944, and ¶ 110.).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Reynolds in view of Nadler discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively, wherein the investigation dataset is periodically updated with new or modified data items from the electronic data assets, based on the authorization for respective electronic data assets (interface element configured to add files to the collaborative dataset. Reynolds ¶ 117.).
Regarding claim 11, Reynolds in view of Nadler discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein access to the investigation dataset is provided via a tabular data investigation user interface that displays the authorized electronic data items in a structured format (Reynolds ¶ 56.).
Regarding claim 12, Reynolds in view of Nadler discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein access to the investigation dataset is provided via an object-based investigation user interface that displays the authorized electronic data items as data objects with associated metadata (Reynolds ¶ 70.).
Claims 4, 10, 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds in view of Nadler in view of Modi (US 2017/0053131 A1, published Feb. 23, 2017).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Reynolds in view of Nadler discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively. Reynolds in view of Nadler does not disclose: wherein the investigation dataset is stored in an investigation workspace, wherein the investigation workspace comprises a self-contained directory that includes only the data items authorized for the specified purpose.
However, Modi does disclose: wherein the investigation dataset is stored in an investigation workspace, wherein the investigation workspace comprises a self-contained directory that includes only the data items authorized for the specified purpose (isolating datasets based upon purpose of use. Modi ¶ 69.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective collaboration and dataset consolidation platform of Reynolds with isolating data items authorized for specific purposes based upon the teachings of Modi. The motivation being to manage the access of user data based upon the owner’s user preferences. Modi ¶ 15.
Regarding claim 10, Reynolds in view of Nadler discloses the limitations of claim 1. Reynolds in view of Nadler does not disclose: wherein the investigation dataset is generated by filtering the electronic data assets based on the determined authorizations and copying the filtered electronic data assets to a separate investigation workspace.
However, Modi does disclose: wherein the investigation dataset is generated by filtering the electronic data assets based on the determined authorizations and copying the filtered electronic data assets to a separate investigation workspace (isolating datasets based upon purpose of use. Modi ¶ 69.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective collaboration and dataset consolidation platform of Reynolds with isolating data items authorized for specific purposes based upon the teachings of Modi. The motivation being to manage the access of user data based upon the owner’s user preferences. Modi ¶ 15.
Claims 5, 13, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds in view of Nadler in view of Modi in view of Marlin (US 2019/0347442 A1, published Nov. 14, 2019).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Reynolds in view of Nadler in view of Modi discloses the limitations of claims 4 and 17, respectively. Reynolds in view of Nadler in view of Modi does not disclose: wherein the investigation workspace is configured to allow reproducibility of the investigation dataset by storing metadata including the specified purpose, filtering criteria, and authorization details.
However, Marlin does disclose: wherein the investigation workspace is configured to allow reproducibility of the investigation dataset by storing metadata including the specified purpose, filtering criteria, and authorization details (information about the current dataset includes information about what the dataset may be used for, human intervention points and decisions, algorithms and models, dependencies and relationships, and version history. Marlin ¶ 56.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective collaboration and dataset consolidation platform of Reynolds with storing metadata including purpose, filtering criteria, and authorization details based upon the teachings of Marlin. The motivation being to generate registry reports including useful management information for the user.
Regarding claim 13, Reynolds in view of Nadler discloses the limitations of claim 1. Reynolds in view of Nadler does not disclose: wherein the investigation dataset includes metadata describing the specified purpose, filtering criteria applied, and authorization details for each electronic data asset included in the investigation dataset.
However, Marlin does disclose: wherein the investigation dataset includes metadata describing the specified purpose, filtering criteria applied, and authorization details for each electronic data asset included in the investigation dataset (information about the current dataset includes information about what the dataset may be used for, human intervention points and decisions, algorithms and models, dependencies and relationships, and version history. Marlin ¶ 56.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective collaboration and dataset consolidation platform of Reynolds with storing metadata including purpose, filtering criteria, and authorization details based upon the teachings of Marlin. The motivation being to generate registry reports including useful management information for the user.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds in view of Nadler in view of Bennati (US 2023/0418977 A1, published Dec. 28, 2023).
Regarding claim 8, Reynolds in view of Nadler discloses the limitations of claim 1. Reynolds in view of Nadler does not disclose: wherein access to the investigation dataset is provided via an interactive graphical user interface that allows the user to view, analyze, and manipulate the authorized electronic data items.
However, Bennati does disclose: wherein access to the investigation dataset is provided via an interactive graphical user interface that allows the user to view, analyze, and manipulate the authorized electronic data items (user interface used to inspect and analyze a dataset and determine a profile summarizing the dataset for conducting a privacy analysis. Bennati Figure 3 and ¶ 66.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective collaboration and dataset consolidation platform of Reynolds with a user interface where the acquired datasets are able to be viewed, analyzed, and manipulated based upon the teachings of Bennati. The motivation being to inspect and analyze the received dataset to determine different strategies. Bennati ¶ 66.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds in view of Nadler in view of Marlin.
Regarding claim 9, Reynolds in view of Nadler discloses the limitations of claim 1. Reynolds in view of Nadler does not disclose: wherein the investigation dataset includes a version history that allows the user to reproduce prior versions of the investigation dataset based on previously authorized data items.
However, Marlin does disclose: wherein the investigation dataset includes a version history that allows the user to reproduce prior versions of the investigation dataset based on previously authorized data items (information about the current dataset includes information including version history. Marlin ¶ 56.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective collaboration and dataset consolidation platform of Reynolds with tracking version history based upon the teachings of Marlin. The motivation being to generate registry reports including useful management information for the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANCE M LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. 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.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights