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 .
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 of this title, 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, 5-11, 21-22, 24, 26-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazejewski et al (“Blazejewski” US 2012/0036109 A1), published on February 09, 2012 in view of Richards et al (“Richards” US 2017/0091400 A1), published on March 30, 2017 and further view of Rizqi et al (“Rizqi” US 20160359684 A1), published on December 08, 2016.
As to claim 1, Blazejewski teaches “receiving a request from a user to access a report associated with one or more content items maintained by an electronic content management system” in par. 0006 (search query to access one or more reports matching predetermined criteria).
Blazejewski teaches “executing a query, the query including one or more attributes of the request to access the report and a set of user permissions” in par. 0011 (filtering criteria correspond to one or more attributes of the request to access the report) and in claim 0028 (user permissions).
Blazejewski teaches “generating, by an analytics engine, the requested report based on one or more results returned from the executing of the query, the requested report including information consistent with the set of user permissions” in par. 0028 (report is generated based on user’s criteria and data permission to limit access to various data to certain users. See claim 7 for search query having permissions that permit the secured access).
It appears Blazejewski does not explicitly teach “generated to include a link to the one or more content items maintained by the electronic content management system, the analytics engine being logically separate from the electronic content management system”.
However, Richards teaches “generated to include a link to the one or more content items maintained by the electronic content management system, the analytics engine being logically separate from the electronic content management system” in par. 0057 (embedded link corresponds to a link to the one or more content items maintained by the electronic content management system because users can click on that link to provide permission and request to access to clinical data stored logically separate from the electronic content).
Blazejewski and Richards are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, electronic content management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to include in a requested report, disclosed by Blazejewski, including “generated to include a link to the one or more content items maintained by the electronic content management system, the analytics engine being logically separate from the electronic content management system” in order to provide permission enforcement mechanism for data access (see Richard’s par. 0057).
Richards teaches “receiving a request from the user to access the one or more content items” in par. 0057 (embedded link corresponds to a link to the one or more content items maintained by the electronic content management system because users can click on that link to provide permission and request to access to clinical data stored logically separate from the electronic content).
Richards teaches “presenting the one or more content items in response to the electronic content management system granting or denying access to the one or more content items to the user, based on a determination of whether the user has access to the content” in par. 0057 (clinical data satisfied user permission are returned to user) and in pars. 0001, 0027 (message can be embedded with links as to suggest of multiple links within a message. Thus, one link can be accessed and the other links can be denied).
It appears Blazejewski and Richards do not explicitly teach “wherein the one or more content items are stored on a cloud-based data repository”.
However, Rizqi teaches “wherein the one or more content items are stored on a cloud-based data repository” in par. 0027, figure 5B (files that are stored in a cloud-based storage based on geo information).
Blazejewski, Richards and Rizqi are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, electronic content management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to store document, disclosed by Blazejewski, including “wherein the one or more content items are stored on a cloud-based data repository”, as suggested by Rizqi in order to implement a cloud-based storage system for document archival (see Rizqi figure 5B).
As to claim 2, Richards teaches “generating an electronic link to the one or more content items, the electronic link comprising a system key, the system key providing an indication that the user has [[the]]a requisite permission ” in par. 0052, par. 0057 (user clicks on link, causes valid access key validation in order to present electronic content to user).
As to claim 3, Richards teaches “wherein the system key is generated by the electronic content management system and provided to an analytics engine for embedding in the electronic link” in par. 0057.
As to claim 5, Richards teaches “generating, in response to receiving a request from the user to access the one or more content items, electronic link to the one or more content items, the electronic link comprising a system key, the system key providing an indication that the user has [[the]] a requisite permission ” in par. 0052, par. 0057 (user clicks on link, causes valid access key validation in order to present electronic content to user).
As to claim 6, Richards teaches “receiving a request from a user to access the analytics engine, the request including verification information associated with the user; verifying, by the analytics engine, the user's verification information” in par. 0052, par. 0057 (“access key” is validated as to perform user's verification information).
As to claim 7, Blazejewski teaches “wherein requesting access for the user to the one or more content items from an electronic content management system includes: transmitting, from the analytics engine to the electronic content management system, the user's verification information; verifying, at the electronic content management system, user privileges associated with the user based on the user's verification information” in par. 0035, fig. 3 and claim 7 (report list is generated in fig. 7; user’s permission to access reports in claim 7).
Richards teaches “and transmitting, from the electronic content management system to the analytics engine, an electronic link to the one or more content items in response to verifying that the user has the required to access the one or more content items” in par. 0052 and par. 0057.
As to claim 8, Blazejewski teaches “wherein the generated report distinguishes between the one or more content items maintained by the electronic content management system” in par. 0035.
As to claim 9, Blazejewski teaches “wherein the one or more content items is a binary representation of the one or more content items” in fig. 2 (check box 208 represents two values: “on-line reports only” or not).
As to claim 10, Blazejewski teaches “wherein the set of user permissions limit an input for the query” in claim 7.
As to claim 11, Richards teaches “wherein the input is limited to content accessible to the user based on the set of user permissions” in par. 0057 (user’s permission is checked to provide content accessible and thus the input is limited to content accessible to the user based on the set of user permissions).
As to claim 21, Rizqi teaches “wherein the electronic content management system is a cloud-based content management system” in par. 0027.
As to claim 22, Rizqi teaches “the cloud-based content management system is isolated to provide access only to authorized users of a specific location within the cloud-based content management system” in par. 0027, fig. 5B.
As to claim 24, Rizqi teaches “automatically synchronizing a content item between repositories managed by the cloud-based content management system” in par. 0027, fig. 5B.
As to claim 26, Rizqi teaches “further comprising providing a copy of one or more content items that are made accessible to authorized collaborating users of a cloud-based collaboration site” in par. 0061 (“…authorized user (e.g., storage policy administrator) can specify that policy “policyABC” can be applied when certain source attributes satisfy certain conditions…”).
As to claim 27, Blazejewski teaches “receiving a request from a user to access a report associated with one or more content items maintained by an electronic content management system” in par. 0006 (search query to access one or more reports matching predetermined criteria).
Blazejewski teaches “executing a query, the query including one or more attributes of the request to access the report” in par. 0011 (filtering criteria correspond to one or more attributes of the request to access the report).
Blazejewski teaches “and a set of user permissions, the requested report being generated based on one or more results returned from the executing of the query, the requested report being consistent with the set of user permissions, such that the report is generated, in response to determining that the user has access permission to the requested report” in par. 0028 (report is generated based on user’s criteria and data permission to limit access to various data to certain users. See claim 7 for search query having permissions that permit the secured access).
It appears Blazejewski does not explicitly teach “including in the report one or more links to the one or more content items maintained by the electronic content management system; in response to user interaction with the one or more links, receiving at least one request to access the one or more content items”.
However, Richards teaches “including in the report one or more links to the one or more content items maintained by the electronic content management system; in response to user interaction with the one or more links, receiving at least one request to access the one or more content items” in par. 0057 (embedded link corresponds to a link to the one or more content items maintained by the electronic content management system because users can click on that link to provide permission and request to access to clinical data).
Blazejewski and Richards are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, electronic content management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to include in a requested report, disclosed by Blazejewski, including “including in the report one or more links to the one or more content items maintained by the electronic content management system; in response to user interaction with the one or more links, receiving at least one request to access the one or more content items” in order to provide permission enforcement mechanism for data access (see Richard’s par. 0057).
Richards teaches “presenting a first content item from among the one or more content items to the user, in response to the electronic content management system determining that the user has permission to access the first content item” in par. 0057 (clinical data satisfied user permission are returned to user).
Richards teaches “and denying access to a second content item from among the one or more content items to the user, in response to the electronic content management system determining that the user does not have permission to access the second content item” in par. 0057 (clinical data satisfied user permission are returned to user) and in pars. 0001, 0027 (message can be embedded with links as to suggest of multiple links within a message. Thus, one link can be accessed and the other links can be denied).
It appears Blazejewski and Richards do not explicitly teach “wherein the first content item or second content item is stored on a cloud- based data repository”.
However, Rizqi teaches “wherein the first content item or second content item is stored on a cloud- based data repository” in par. 0027, figure 5B (files that are stored in a cloud-based storage based on geo information).
Blazejewski, Richards and Rizqi are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, electronic content management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to store document, disclosed by Blazejewski, including “wherein the first content item or second content item is stored on a cloud- based data repository”, as suggested by Rizqi in order to implement a cloud-based storage system for document archival (see Rizqi figure 5B).
As to claim 29, Rizqi teaches “wherein the electronic content management system is a cloud-based content management system; wherein the cloud-based content management system is isolated to provide access only to authorized users of a specific location within the cloud-based content management system” in par. 0027, fig. 5B.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazejewski et al (“Blazejewski” US 2012/0036109 A1), published on February 09, 2012 in view of Richards et al (“Richards” US 2017/0091400 A1), published on March 30, 2017, Rizqi et al (“Rizqi” US 20160359684 A1), published on December 08, 2016 and in further view of Puri et al (“Puri” US 2017/0142578 A1), published on May 18, 2017.
As to claim 4, it appears Blazejewski, Richards and Rizqi do not explicitly teach “wherein the system key is a one-time use key”.
However, Puri teaches “wherein the system key is a one-time use key” in par. 0028 (“…Subsequent interactions discard this key as in a one-time pad and use new keys shared within encrypted peer-to-peer links to secure subsequent signaling interactions…”. Noting that “one-time pad” key corresponds to one-time key).
Blazejewski, Richards, Rizqi and Puri are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, electronic content management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to provide a key, disclosed by Richards to include “wherein the system key is a one-time use key” in order to provide time limit access mechanism (see Puri par. 0028).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazejewski et al (“Blazejewski” US 2012/0036109 A1), published on February 09, 2012 in view of Richards et al (“Richards” US 2017/0091400 A1), published on March 30, 2017, Rizqi et al (“Rizqi” US 20160359684 A1), published on December 08, 2016 and in further view of IBALL et al (“IBALL” US 20180196878 A1), published on July 12, 2018.
As to claim 25, it appears Blazejewski, Richards and Rizqi do not explicitly teach “wherein at least one instance of the synchronized content item is inside of a firewall”.
However, IBALL teaches “wherein at least one instance of the synchronized content item is inside of a firewall” in par. 0028 (“… the current subject matter can support automatic synchronization of content between one or more CMS-managed repositories that are inside of a firewall and a copy of one or more content items that are made accessible to authorized collaborating users of the collaboration site in the cloud…”).
Blazejewski, Richards, Rizqi and IBALL are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, electronic content management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to provide a key, disclosed by Richards to include “wherein at least one instance of the synchronized content item is inside of a firewall”, as suggested by IBALL in order to enhance ease of engagement and collaboration both between users within an organization (See IBALL par. 0028).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 28 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loc Tran whose telephone number is 571-272-8485. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm; First Fri Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on (571)-270-1698. 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.
/LOC TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights