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
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of patent no. 12353584. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same limitations and are anticipated by the parent application.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
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 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUTIERREZ et al hereafter GUTIERREZ (WIPO pub. WO 2023057955 A1) in view of Malboubi et al hereafter Malboubi (US Patent app. Pub. 20230016839).
4. As per claims 1, 8, and 15, GUTIERREZ discloses a method, a system, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes one or more processing devices performing operations comprising: receiving, by a first computing system from a second computing system, a verification query requesting verification of characteristics of an entity involved in an online interaction, wherein the entity is a user or organization, and the verification query comprises a unique identifier of the entity; querying a verification repository internal to the first computing system based on the unique identifier of the entity; querying an external-source cache using the unique identifier of the entity to identify a matching unique identifier; in response to identifying the matching unique identifier in the external-source cache (page: 3, lines 15-38, and Page:4, Lines: 1-37; wherein it emphasizes when a management system determines to verify the authenticity of a device in a cloud system then it sends a verification query comprises unique identifier requesting the verification characteristics of an entity of the cloud system. After receiving the query identifier, the management system querying an internal repository for verification based on identifier and it also query an external-source cache using the unique identifier. If it determines there is a match of the identifier in the external source cache then it requesting external sensitive data records from the external source); consolidating the external sensitive data records and internal sensitive data records obtained through querying the verification repository to generate consolidated sensitive data records corresponding to the entity; and transmitting a verification result generated based on the consolidated sensitive data records to the second computing system (page:6, lines 10-18, and Page 7, lines 12-37, and Page 8, lines: 5-15; wherein it elaborates then the management system consolidate the external sensitive data records and internal sensitive data records obtained through querying the verification repository to generate consolidated sensitive data records and transmits that verification result to the requested party for verification). Although, GUTIERREZ discusses about verification query comprises with verification identifier. However, in the same field of endeavor, Malboubi discloses the verification query comprising a unique identifier of the entity (paragraphs: 19-21, and 35-37).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network security art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Malboubi’s teachings of the verification query comprising a unique identifier of the entity with the teachings of GUTIERREZ, for the purpose of effectively protecting the verification identifier from any unauthorized intruders.
5. As per claim 2, GUTIERREZ in view of Malboubi discloses the method, wherein the external-source cache comprises an encrypted unique identifier of each sensitive data record available at an external source and wherein querying the external-source cache using the unique identifier of the entity comprises: generating an encrypted query identifier for the unique identifier of the entity; and searching the external-source cache for a match of the encrypted query identifier (GUTIERREZ , Page:3, lines: 20-35, and Page 6, lines: 5-18).
6. As per claim 3, GUTIERREZ in view of Malboubi discloses the method, wherein the encrypted query identifier comprises a hash of the unique identifier of the entity (GUTIERREZ, Page:6, lines 20-35).
7. As per claim 4, GUTIERREZ in view of Malboubi discloses the method, further comprising prior to querying the external-source cache, determining that the external source corresponding to the external-source cache accepts verification requests from the second computing system, wherein querying the external-source cache is performed in response to determining that the external source corresponding to the external-source cache accepts verification requests from the second computing system (page 4, lines: 1-27, and Page 4, lines 30-38).
8. As per claim 5, GUTIERREZ in view of Malboubi discloses the method, maintaining a plurality of external-source caches comprising the external-source cache, wherein maintaining the plurality of external-source caches comprises, for each of the external-source caches: receiving an updated secured cache file from an external source corresponding to the external-source cache; purging the external-source cache; and loading the updated secured cache file into the external-source cache (page 7, lines 1-24, and Page 7, lines: 25-38).
9. As per claim 6, GUTIERREZ in view of Malboubi discloses the method, wherein consolidating the external sensitive data records and the internal sensitive data records comprises one or more of: removing duplicate data from the external sensitive data records and the internal sensitive data records; resolving conflicts in the external sensitive data records and the internal sensitive data records; or combining the external sensitive data records and the internal sensitive data records (Page:8, lines: 5-22, Page: 9, lines 3-20).
10. As per claim 7, GUTIERREZ in view of Malboubi discloses the method, wherein the verification query is received in a batch file comprising a plurality of verification queries (page 12, lines: 25-37, P: 13, lines: 8-25).
11. Claims 9-14, and 16-20 are listed all the same elements of claims 2-7. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claim 2-7 apply equally as well to claims 9-14, and 16-20.
Citation of References
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
Murthy et al (US pat. app. Pub. 20220027810): discusses dynamic sustainability risk assessment of suppliers and sourcing location to aid procurement decision. The existing solutions for sustainability risk assessment involves huge efforts in data collection, upload, consolidation from various data sources which includes sustainability impact factors. The present disclosure captures various data related to the suppliers and the sustainability impact factors from various internal and external data sources and assigns the weights to the sustainability impact factors to generate key performance indicators based on the industry segment and the data related to the suppliers. Further, the system trains an artificial intelligence model based on the key performance indicators and the data related to the suppliers using a ridge regression technique to estimate a sustainability risk assessment of the supplier. The system performs a scenario-based analysis for providing the recommendations to switch the commodity procurement from sourcing location to a target location.
Yamada et al (US pat. App. Pub. 20150370728): elaborates that storing a table tree and verifier tree. The table tree includes a parent table and child table. The verifier tree includes a parent verifier associated with the parent table, and a child verifier associated with the child table. The parent verifier is used for verifying the child table and the child verifier. The device stores a secure table tree being a part of the table tree and used for address translation, and a secure verifier tree being a part of the verifier tree, to a secure storage unit. The device, when data has a read-only attribute, calculates verification information based on the data and a secure value varying according as the data is updated, and executes verification based on a verifier corresponded to the data and the verification information.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD W REZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cathy Thiaw can be reached on 571-270-1138. 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).
Prosecution Insights