DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-14 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1-7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,417,227. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use similar limitations to produce the same end result of providing the user access to the filtered table.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,417,227 to arrive at the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application because one would realize that the remaining elements would perform the same functions as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Dorne et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0173851 A1).
In respect to Claim 1, Dorne teaches:
a computer system comprising: one or more computer readable storage devices configured to store at least a plurality of computer readable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the plurality of computer readable instructions to cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: ingesting a dataset, wherein the dataset comprises a table of rows and columns; (Dorne [0062, 0066, FIG. 2])
parsing at least a column of the table to determine, for each row of the table, a list of permissions markings; (Dorne [0087-0093, FIG. 3A, FIG. 3B])
Dorne teaches [0081] determining permissions based on access permissions functionality. Dorne teaches [0081] that a user may only have permissions to access certain rows of data tables or permissions based on the user’s role.
and in response to a request, from a user, to access the dataset: determining permissions associated with the user; (Dorne [0087, 0101, FIG. 2, FIG. 3])
determining an evaluated policy associated with the user based on the permissions, wherein the evaluated policy comprises a single expression; (Dorne [0101, FIG. 5])
filtering the table based on applying the evaluated policy associated with the user to the permissions markings of each row of the table; (Dorne [0103, 0109, FIG. 5])
Dorne teaches [FIG. 5] generation of queries which filters the table, wherein the table data is generated based on permissions associated with a particular user.
and providing the user access to the filtered table (Dorne [0104, FIG. 5])
As per Claim 2, Dorne teaches:
wherein the filtering further comprises applying one or more filtering rules to the evaluated policy and the permissions markings, and wherein the filtering rules comprise a customizable set of filtering rules (Dorne [0103, 0109, FIG. 5])
As per Claim 3, Dorne teaches:
wherein the single expression comprises one or more logical operators (Dorne [0101, FIG. 5])
As per Claim 5, Dorne teaches:
wherein the lists of permissions markings are determined from unstructured strings of permissions information (Dorne [0087-0093, FIG. 3A, FIG. 3B])
As per Claim 6, Dorne teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, from the user, a search query; combining the evaluated policy associated with the user with the search query; and filtering the filtered table based on the combined evaluated policy and search query (Dorne [FIG. 5, 0100-0104])
As per Claim 7, Dorne teaches:
providing one or more user interfaces configured to allow user-specification of one or more filtering rules, wherein user-specification of the filtering rules comprises specifying at least one of: a user attribute, a column of a dataset, or a specific value (Dorne [FIG 7A, FIG. 7B, 0114-0115])
Claims 8-10 & 12-14 are the system claims corresponding to claims 1-3 & 5-7 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claims 15-17 & 19-20 are the method claims corresponding to claims 1-3 & 5-6 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 11, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorne in view of Elliot et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0359379 A1).
As per Claim 4, Elliot teaches:
wherein the single expression comprises a Boolean expression (Elliot [0035, 0041])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Elliot into the system of Dorne. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system where access permission may include operations that are specific to the application from which the access request was received (Elliot [0019]).
Claim 11 is the system claim corresponding to claim 4, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to claim 4, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights