Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-01-10)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness, 112 - Written Description/Enablement

CLAIMS:
AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS

This listing of claims amends prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application.

1\. (Currently Amended) A file access right authentication method, for an electronic device, the method comprising:
receiving a file access request, wherein the file access request includes a first process identifier and a request to access a first file on the electronic device;
obtaining a-the first process identifier , and determining first fixed identity information corresponding to the first process identifier; and
 determining if the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, and determining, , that authentication of the file access request succeeds if the first fixed identity information matches the authorized fixed identity information.

2\. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining, , that authentication of the file access request succeeds comprises:
if the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, decrypting file-key ciphertext by using the first fixed identity information, and when the decryption succeeds, determining that the authentication of the file access request succeeds, wherein the file-key ciphertext is ciphertext of a file key used to encrypt the first file.

3\. (Original) The method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises:
when the decryption fails, determining that the authentication of the file access request fails.

4\. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1 , wherein before the receiving, by the electronic device, a file access request, the method further comprises:
obtaining a process identifier and fixed identity information of a running application program, establishing a correspondence between the process identifier and the fixed identity information, and
establishing a correspondence between a newly created file and the fixed identity information.

5\. (Original) The method according to claim 2, wherein before the receiving, by the electronic device, a file access request, the method further comprises:
encrypting the file key of the first file based on the fixed identity information corresponding to the first file and a file system primary key according to a preset key encryption algorithm, to generate the file-key ciphertext; and
encrypting the first file by using the file key of the first file, to generate ciphertext of the first file, wherein a header of the ciphertext of the first file comprises the authorized fixed identity information and the file-key ciphertext; and
the matching, by the electronic device, the first fixed identity information with authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file comprises:
matching the first fixed identity information with the authorized fixed identity information in the header of the ciphertext of the first file.

6-9. (Canceled). 78

10\. (New) An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program that is stored in the memory and that, when executed by the processor, causes the computer device to:
receive a file access request, wherein the file access request includes a first process identifier and a request to access a first file on the electronic device;
obtain the first process identifier, and determine first fixed identity information corresponding to the first process identifier; and
determine if the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, and determine that authentication of the file access request succeeds if the first fixed identify information matches the authorized fixed identity information.

11\. (New) The electronic device of claim 10, wherein the determine that authentication of the file access request succeeds comprises:
if the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, decrypt file-key ciphertext by using the first fixed identity information, and when the decryption succeeds, determine that the authentication of the file access request succeeds, wherein the file-key ciphertext is ciphertext of a file key used to encrypt the first file.

12\. (New) The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the computer device is further enabled to:
when the decryption fails, determine that the authentication of the file access request fails.
13\. (New) The electronic device according to claim 10, wherein before the receive, by the electronic device, a file access request, the computer device is further enabled to:
obtain a process identifier and fixed identity information of a running application program, establishing a correspondence between the process identifier and the fixed identity information, and
establishing a correspondence between a newly created file and the fixed identity information.

14\. (New) The electronic device according to claim 11, wherein before the receive, by the electronic device, a file access request, the computer device is further enabled to:
encrypt the file key of the first file based on the fixed identity information corresponding to the first file and a file system primary key according to a preset key encryption algorithm, to generate the file-key ciphertext; and
encrypt the first file by using the file key of the first file, to generate ciphertext of the first file, wherein a header of the ciphertext of the first file comprises the authorized fixed identity information and the file-key ciphertext; and
the match, by the electronic device, the first fixed identity information with authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file comprises:
match the first fixed identity information with the authorized fixed identity information in the header of the ciphertext of the first file.

15\. (New) A non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium comprises a computer program that, when executed by a processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to:
receive a file access request, wherein the file access request includes a first process identifier and a request to access a first file on the electronic device;
obtain the first process identifier, and determine first fixed identity information corresponding to the first process identifier; and
determine if the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, and determine that authentication of the file access request succeeds if the first fixed identify information matches the authorized fixed identity information.

16\. (New)The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15, wherein the determine that authentication of the file access request succeeds comprises:
if the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, decrypt file-key ciphertext by using the first fixed identity information, and when the decryption succeeds, determine that the authentication of the file access request succeeds, wherein the file-key ciphertext is ciphertext of a file key used to encrypt the first file.

17\. (New) The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 16, wherein the electronic device is further enabled to perform: when the decryption fails, determine that the authentication of the file access request fails.

18\. (New) The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15, wherein before the receive, by the electronic device, a file access request, the electronic device is further caused to:
obtain a process identifier and fixed identity information of a running application program, establishing a correspondence between the process identifier and the fixed identity information, and
establishing a correspondence between a newly created file and the fixed identity information.

19\. (New) The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 16, wherein before the receive, by the electronic device, a file access request the electronic, wherein the electronic device is further caused to:
encrypt the file key of the first file based on the fixed identity information corresponding to the first file and a file system primary key according to a preset key encryption algorithm, to generate the file-key ciphertext; and
encrypt the first file by using the file key of the first file, to generate ciphertext of the first file, wherein a header of the ciphertext of the first file comprises the authorized fixed identity information and the file-key ciphertext; and
the match, by the electronic device, the first fixed identity information with authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file comprises:
match the first fixed identity information with the authorized fixed identity information in the header of the ciphertext of the first file.
3 4 5 6

OFFICE 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to application filed on 09/15/2021. In the application,
Claims 1-5 and 10-19 are pending and being considered.
Claims 1, 10 and 15 are independent.
Claims 6-9 have been cancelled.
Claims 5, 14 and 19 are objected.
Claims 1-4, 10-13 and 15-18 are rejected.
Foreign Priority
This application is a National Stage of International Application No. PCT/CN2020/079104, filed on March 13, 2020, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 201910220920.7, filed on March 22, 2019. Both of the aforementioned applications are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/15/2021 and 04/18/2022 are filed on or after the mailing date of the application no.17/439,467 filed on 09/15/2021. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.  Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and an initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 filed on 09/15/2021 and 04/18/2022 is attached to the instant office action.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it repeats information given in the title, such as “file access right authentication method and electronic device”. Examiner respectfully suggests applicant to amend the Abstract language and re-write it in a clear and concise manner by avoiding the information given in the title. Correction is required.  See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
1.	The use of the term “Bluetooth”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
2.	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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 11-14 and 16-19 are objected due to the following informalities:
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites contingent (conditional) limitations “determining if the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, and determining that authentication of the file access request succeeds if the first fixed identify information matches the authorized fixed identity information” that contains “if” statement(s), as optional (conditional) language. Language that suggests or makes optional (conditional) but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. According to MPEP (§ 2111.04, subsection II), “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”. For example, when analyzing the claimed method as a whole, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed […]. Therefore [t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim” (See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims). For examination purpose, and in view of the Fig. 5 (steps 503-505) and associated paragraph [0091-00102], under BRI, examiner interprets that the claim limitations as recited are directed to the step of ‘determining’ that authentication of the file access request succeeds only if the first fixed identify information matches the authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, and authentication of the file access request fails if the first fixed identify information does not match with the authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file. Therefore, examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method step of “determining that authentication of the file access request succeeds”, under BRI of the claim, if the first fixed identify information does not match with the authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file (See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) as disclosed above). Applicant is suggested to make appropriate corrections in light of the immediate specification to overcome this objection.
Regrading claim 2, the claim is objected for the same reasons as mentioned above for the independent claim 1, since the claim 2 also recites similar contingent (conditional) limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 16, the claims recite “if the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file”, which should be corrected and rewritten as “if the first fixed identity information matches the authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file”, since the term “authorized fixed identity information” has already been recited in the independent claims 1, 10 and 16 upon which claims 2, 11 and 16 are dependent, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 16, the claims further recite “if the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, decrypt file-key ciphertext by using the first fixed identity information, and when the decryption succeeds, …”, in which term “the decryption” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purpose, and in view of the Fig. 5 (steps 505-506) and associated paragraph [00102-00105], examiner interprets that the recited term “the decryption” refers to decrypt a file-key ciphertext by using the first fixed identity information if the first fixed identity information matches the authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file. Applicant is suggested to make appropriate correction by amending the limitation in a clear and concise manner to overcome this objection.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 17, the claims are objected for the same reasons for reciting “the decryption” as mentioned above for claims 2, 11 and 16, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the claims recite “wherein before the receiving, by the electronic device, a file access request, the method further comprises”, which should be corrected and rewritten as “wherein, before the file access request, the method further comprises”, since the limitation “receiving a file access request” has already been recited in the independent claim 1 upon which claims 4 and 5 are dependent. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim further recites “the matching, by the electronic device, the first fixed identity information with authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file comprises:” which lacks antecedent basis for “the matching”. For examination purpose, and in view of the Fig. 5 (steps 503-505) and associated paragraph [0098-0102], examiner interprets that the recited “the matching, by the electronic device, the first fixed identity information with authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file comprises:” refers to the step of “determining if the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file”, as recited in the independent claim 1. Therefore, applicant is suggested to rewrite the claim limitation(s) in a clear and concise manner. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the claims are objected for the same reasons as mentioned above for claims 4 and 5, respectively, Therefore, appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the claims are objected for the same reasons as mentioned above for claims 4 and 5, respectively, Therefore, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA  the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites limitation the matching”, which has not been defined previously. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the matching” in the claim. Applicant is suggested to clarify with correct antecedent basis for “the matching”, as described above in the claim objection for claim 5.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as mentioned above for claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 14 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim, but would be allowable only if rewritten in independent form for including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and amended to overcome the claim objections and rejections under 112(b), as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebayashi et al. (US 20040010701 A1; hereinafter “Ume”) in view of Yang et al. (US 2018/0102902 A1; hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ume teaches A file access right authentication method for an electronic device, the method comprising (Ume, Para. [0014], discloses a data protection method for effectively preventing unauthorized access to a resource storage that stores data files (see Fig. 3), and as disclosed in Fig. 2 and Para. [0052], wherein a computer 100 can be used to implement the method embodiment of the present invention):
receiving a file access request, wherein the file access request includes Ume, Para. [0080], discloses that the application 230 outputs an access request for the file 111a in the folder 111 in step S12. The access request may comprise a request to generate the file 111a, a request to refer to the file 111a (e.g., read a file), a request to update the file 111a, and a request to delete the file 111a. The access request which is outputted from the application 230 is transferred to a driver 240);
obtaining the first process identifier and determining first fixed identity information corresponding to the first process identifier (Ume, Para. [0081], discloses that the driver 240 acquires the process ID of the application 230 in response to the access request which is outputted from the application 230. The driver 240 refers to the access permission management table 210, and retrieves therefrom a client identifier corresponding to the acquired process ID, and as disclosed in Fig. 4 and Para. [0071-0072], an access permission management table 210 that has a column of client identifiers contains identification information (client identifiers; e.g., first fixed identity information) of processing functions such as the application 230 executed as a client.); and
determining if the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, and determining that authentication of the file access request succeeds if the first fixed identity information matches the authorized fixed identity information (Ume, Para. [0068 and/or 0112], discloses that after the identification information about the application 230 which has outputted the file access request for the file has been acquired by the access permission/inhibition determining unit 243, then the access permission/inhibition determining unit 243 determines whether the file access request for the resource to be protected is to be permitted or not. Specifically, if information matching a combination of the identification information about the application and the folder (in which the file to be accessed) of the access destination is registered in the access permission management table 210, then the access permission/inhibition determining unit 243 permits accessing the file. Or see also Fig. 13 and Para. [0109], that shows a process of accessing a file. The application 230 outputs a file access request in step S81. The file access request is received by the driver 240. The driver 240 refers to the protection resource management table 220, and confirms whether the file to be accessed in response to the file access request is a file in the folder to be monitored or not in step S82. If the file to be accessed is a file in the folder to be monitored, then the driver 240 refers to the access permission management table 210 (e.g., by verifying client ID/identification information) and confirms whether access to the file by the application 230 which has outputted the file access request is permitted or not in step S83. If access to the file by the application 230 is permitted, then the driver 240 accesses the file in response to the file access request, and returns the result to the application 230 in step S84.).
Ume, as described above, teaches to ‘obtaining the first process identifier and determining first fixed identity information corresponding to the first process identifier’, however Ume fails to explicitly disclose but Yang teaches wherein the file access request includes a first process identifier (Yang, Para. [0145], discloses that, at 302, a read request is received from a requesting process P having a corresponding process ID. The read request also includes file identifying information enabling the data protection module to identify the data file F being requested (e.g., by identifying the file path of the data file), or see also Para. [0173], discloses that the request may include a process ID P, file identifying information for a file F…).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Ume’ by incorporating ‘wherein the file access request includes a first process identifier’, as taught by Yang, in order to manage data access of processes executing on a computer system and protects data from data breaches and known or unknown attacks including ransomware and/or phishing attacks; Yang, Abstract and Para. [0002].
Regrading independent Claim 10, the claim has limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) for the independent claim 1, and are met by the references as discussed above. Independent claim 10, however, also recites the following limitations “An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program that is stored in the memory and that, when executed by the processor, causes the computer device to:”, which is disclosed in Fig. 2 and Para. [0052-0053] of the cited prior art ‘Ume’.
Regrading independent Claim 15, the claim has limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) for the independent claim 1, and are met by the references as discussed above. Independent claim 15, however, also recites the following limitations “A non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium comprises a computer program that, when executed by a processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to:”, which is disclosed in claim 10 and Para. [0150-0153] of the cited prior art ‘Ume’.
Claims 2-3, 11-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebayashi et al. (US 20040010701 A1; hereinafter “Ume”) in view of Yang et al. (US 2018/0102902 A1; hereinafter “Yang”), and further in view of Ohmori et al. (US 2008/0235517 A1; hereinafter “Ohmori”) and Asano, Tomoyuki (US 2003/0142826 A1; hereinafter “Asano”).
Regarding claim 2, Ume as modified by Yang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein Ume further teaches the determining that authentication of the file access request succeeds comprises: if the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, decrypting file-key ciphertext Ume, Para. [0068-0069 & 0083], discloses that the access permission/inhibition determining unit 243 determines whether the file access request for the resource to be protected is to be permitted or not. Specifically, if information matching a combination of the identification information about the application and the folder (in which the file to be accessed) of the access destination is registered in the access permission management table 210, then the access permission/inhibition determining unit 243 permits accessing the file. If the access permission/inhibition determining unit 243 permits a file access request for the resource to be protected, then the encryption/decryption processor 244 encrypts or decrypts the file specified by the file access request. Specifically, if the file access request is a file reference request, then the encryption/decryption processor 244 extracts the specified file from the folder to be protected, and decrypts the file into plaintext data (e.g., file-key ciphertext)), and
when the decryption succeeds, determining that the authentication of the file access request succeeds, wherein Ume, Para. [0118 and 0119], discloses that the encryption/decryption processor 244 carries out a file accessing process including file encryption or decryption on the file to be accessed, using the acquired key. Specifically, if the file access request is a request to read the file, then the encryption/decryption processor 244 decrypts the file to be accessed with the acquired key, and transfers the decrypted file to the application 230. If the file access request is a request to write the file, then the encryption/decryption processor 244 encrypts the data to be written with the acquired key, forms a file thereof, and stores the file in the folder to be monitored).
Ume, as described above, teaches ‘wherein the determining that authentication of the file access request succeeds comprises: if the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, decrypting file-key ciphertext, and wherein a file key is used to encrypt the first file’, however the combination of ‘Ume as modified by Yang’ fails to explicitly disclose but Ohmori teaches decrypting file-key ciphertext by using the first fixed identity information (Ohmori, Para. [0026], discloses that the encryption processing unit uses the encryption scheme indicated by the identification information only for decrypting a ciphertext, and as disclosed in Para. [0199], wherein the encryption scheme indicated by the identification information may include a program file name (e.g., program package name, as indicated in paragraph 0033 of the immediate specification)), and
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Ume as modified by Yang’ by incorporating ‘decrypting file-key ciphertext by using the first fixed identity information’, as taught by Ohmori, such modification would provide an enhanced decryption scheme that would prevent use of unauthorized file contents obtained by tampering and eavesdropping; Ohmori, Para. [0002].
Ume as modified by Yang in view of Ohmori fails to explicitly disclose but Asano teaches wherein the file-key ciphertext is ciphertext of a file key (Asano, Para. [0081], discloses that the decrypted key ciphertext provides the receiver with the content key (e.g., as cleartext). The receiver can then access the content file in the clear by decrypting the encrypted content file using the content key).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Ume as modified by Yang in view of Ohmori’ by incorporating ‘wherein the file-key ciphertext is ciphertext of a file key’, as taught by Asano, such modification would provide access for authorized receivers to the content of encrypted content file while preventing revoked receivers (i.e., unauthorized receivers) from accessing the encrypted content of file; Asano, Para. [0042].
Regarding claim 3, Ume as modified by Yang in view of Ohmori and Asano teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein Ume further teaches the method further comprises: when the decryption fails, determining that the authentication of the file access request fails (Ume, Para. [0050], discloses that a file or other data which is stored in the resource 1 by a certain application is encrypted using a key that is generated by the application. Therefore, an attempt to access a file stored in the resource 1 from an application that is not legitimately activated fails to decrypt the file. As a result, it is possible to prevent and monitor the unauthorized processing and leakage of information based on an operation according to a program that is not permitted to access the resource 1. Stated otherwise, a legitimate user who is permitted to access information of the file is inhibited from unauthorized control of the resource 1 through an unauthorized operation via a program that is not desired by the system administrator.).
Regarding claims 11-12, the claims are drawn to the electronic device and have limitations similar to the method claims 2-3, respectively. Therefore, the claims 11-12 are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claims 2-3, respectively.
Regarding claim 16-17, the claims are drawn to the non-transitory computer readable medium and have limitations similar to the method claims 2-3, respectively. Therefore, the claims 16-17 are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claims 2-3, respectively.
Claims 4, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebayashi et al. (US 20040010701 A1; hereinafter “Ume”) in view of Yang et al. (US 2018/0102902 A1; hereinafter “Yang”), and further in view of Robert Scott Chapman, III (US 2016/0196442 A1; hereinafter “Chapman”).
Regarding claim 4, Ume as modified by Yang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein Ume further teaches before the receiving, by the electronic device, a file access request, the method further comprises (Ume, Fig. 1 and Para. [0038 & 0040], discloses that first, identification information 2a about a program which can access the resource 1 is registered in an access permission management table 3 (step S1 in Fig. 1). In the example shown in FIG. 1, program A is registered as identification information 2a about a program which can access the resource 1 […]. Thereafter, when an access request 2c for accessing to the resource 1 is received, identification information 4 about the request source program 2 which has outputted the access request 2c is acquired (step S2 in Fig. 1)):
obtaining a process identifier and fixed identity information of a running application program (Ume, Fig. 1 and Para. [0038], discloses that, at step S1 in Fig. 1, identification information 2a about a program which can access the resource 1 is registered in an access permission management table 3. In the example shown in FIG. 1, program A is registered as identification information 2a about a program which can access the resource 1 […], and as disclosed in Para. [0091], the application 230 outputs a registration request to register the process ID which is allocated when the process is activated),
however, the combination of ‘Ume as modified by Yang’ fails to explicitly disclose but Chapman teaches establishing a correspondence between the process identifier and the fixed identity information (Chapman, Fig. 7 and Para. [0088], discloses a data structure 700 that is configured to store zero or more records 710. In this example, each record includes fields for a process ID, a user ID, an application, a path, and a file name. The process ID is the process ID assigned to an instance of an executing software application by the OS. The “application” field is the name of the application associated with the process ID. The “file name” field is the name of the document being accessed by the corresponding process ID. (herein, name of application and/or file name represents fixed identity information)), and establishing a correspondence between a newly created file and the fixed identity information (Chapman, Para. [0085 and 0088], discloses that if the monitoring software 342 does not find a record in its data structure for the command’s process ID, the monitoring software 342 generates a new record for its data structure (as depicted in Fig. 7) and stores information associated with the command, such as the process ID, user ID, name of application, path name and file name of the accessed file. For example, and as depicted in Fig. 7, where a process ID “12” is associated with an application name “FileSync” corresponding to a file name “finance2013.xlsx”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Ume as modified by Yang’ by incorporating ‘establishing a correspondence between the process identifier and the fixed identity information; and establishing a correspondence between a newly created file and the fixed identity information’, as taught by Chapman, in order to establish a data structure for tracking processes (process IDs) that attempt to perform commands on the secure data and secures data by determining whether a command in the command queue should be allowed or not; Chapman, Para. [0084 and 0088].
Regarding claim 13, the claim is drawn to the electronic device and have limitations similar to the method claim 4. Therefore, the claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer readable medium and have limitations similar to the method claim 4. Therefore, the claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1.	Chambliss et al. (US 20170093844 A1) is directed to access control of data, and more particularly to regulation of access by an access program to a data object residing in a storage system.
2.	Nakamura et al. (US 20150363189 A1) discloses to monitor processes generated by an installer for the software when the software is installed. The operation unit generates, based on file information about files accessed by the generated processes and the relationships between the processes, software configuration information associating the file information about the files with the software.
3.	Sasaki et al. (US 5870477 A) discloses that when the IDs's coincide with each other, so that it is judged that decryption is possible. Such as, the ciphertext data is deciphered using the deciphered management key (step 348), and plaintext data obtained by the decryption is displayed on the display unit 2.
4.	Sun, Zhe (CN 108228770 A) discloses to determine the application package name corresponding to the id of the corresponding relation of the process name and the determination of the target file corresponding to the application package name.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
Claims 1-5 and 10-19 are pending, in which 1-4,10-13 and 15-18 stand rejected. Claims 5,14 and 19 are objected to.
The Abstract and Specification have been amended pursuant to the Examiner's suggestions.
The claims have been amended to eliminate the alleged "conditional" limitations noted by the Examiner and other language to which the Examiner objects.
Claims 5, 14 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite. The claim amendments obviate the §112 rejection.
Claims 5, 14 and 19 stand objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim, but
would be allowable only if rewritten in independent form for including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and amended to overcome the claim objections and rejections under 112(b). For the reasons set forth below, the independent claims are believed to be allowable and thus claims 5, 14, and 19 have not been rewritten in independent form at this time.
Claims 1, 10 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over
Umebayashi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0010701 Al; hereinafter Ume) in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0102902 Al; hereinafter Yang).
Initially, Applicant notes that the Examiner has construed the claims as not requiring the authentication procedure recited in the claims because it was deemed to be recited in conditional format. The amended claims expressly recite "determining that the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, and, in response to the determining that the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed
identity information corresponding to the first file, authenticating the file access request." The claims expressly recite the authentication step, without condition, and thus this step must be considered when applying the prior art.
The claimed invention utilizes an identification of the requesting program, as opposed to a conventional permission structure, to authenticate a request for a file. As noted in paragraph [0004] of the subject application, the invention addresses, for example, a situation where malware has attacked the operating system to obtain root access rights, by changing a permissions table, for example. In such a situation, the malware can directly obtain a file of another application, for example, to copy phone book information of a contacts application. The claimed identification of the requesting program prevents such access, even where the requesting malware program has the highest level of access permissions. To clarify the invention, the claims have been amended to expressly recite that "the fixed identity information includes a parameter that identifies a fixed attribute of an application program corresponding to the first file."
The Examiner cites to paragraphs [0080] and [0081] as teaching "obtaining the first process identifier and determining first fixed identity information corresponding to the first process identifier". However, the access method of Ume acquires a process ID of the requesting application and refers to a permissions table to retrieve a client identifier corresponding to the process ID. Therefore, Ume teaches the use of a permission table to determine access rights. It follows that Ume fails to teach or suggest the claimed authentication based on matching first fixed identity information with authorized fixed indent information.
The process taught by Ume does not have the above-noted advantages of the claimed invention. For example, in the process disclosed by Ume, malware could have obtained root permissions and thus the permissions table would have indicated that the malware was permitted
to access the file. In the claimed invention, only the original application corresponding to the file can access the file. Yang fails to cure this deficiency. Accordingly, the amended claims are allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 2-3, 11-12 and 16-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ume in view of Yang, and further in view of Ohmori et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0235517 A1; hereinafter Ohmori) and Asano, Tomoyuki (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0142826 A1; hereinafter Asano). However, the additional cited references fails to cure the deficiencies of Ume noted above.
Claims 4, 13 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ume in view of Yang, and further in view of Robert Scott Chapman, Ill (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0196442 A1; hereinafter Chapman). However, the additional cited references fails to cure the deficiencies of Ume noted above.
For the reasons noted above, withdrawal of the rejections is solicited.
Respectfully submitted,

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 .
Foreign Priority
This application is a National Stage of International Application No. PCT/CN2020/0791 04, filed on March 13, 2020, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 201910220920.7, filed on March 22, 2019.
Response to Amendments
This office action is in response to the amendments filed on 05/15/2024. In which,
Claims 1, 10 and 15 are independent.
Claims 3, 6-9, 12 and 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 5, 10-11, 13-14, 15-16 and 19 are amended.
Claim 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 13-16 and 18-19 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, see page 9-10, filed on 05/15/2024, have been fully
considered and are persuasive in view of the remarks and claim amendments. In particular, independent claims (1, 10 and 15) are amended to incorporate the allowable subject matter of dependent claims (5, 14 and 19), respectively, as suggested on page 9 of the previous office action dated 01/10/2024. Therefore, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous office action has been waived.
Abstract objection has been waived in view of the new Abstract filed on 05/15/2024.
Specification objections have been waived in view of the specification amendments and remarks filed on 05/15/2024.
Claim objections has been waived in view of the claim amendments and remarks filed on 05/15/2024.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been waived in view of the claim amendments and remarks filed on 05/15/2024.
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
An examiner's amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner's amendment was given via a phone conversation, followed by an email, with the applicant’s representative- Letao Qin (Reg. No. 64,359) on 08/29/2024.
In the application, please replace all existing set of claims with:
1. (Currently Amended) A file access right authentication method for an electronic device, the method comprising:
receiving a file access request, wherein the file access request includes a first process identifier and a request to access a first file on the electronic device[[;]], wherein before receiving, by the electronic device, the file access request, the method further comprises:
encrypting a file key of the first file based on a fixed identity information corresponding to the first file and a file system primary key according to a preset key encryption algorithm, to generate a file-key ciphertext, and
encrypting the first file by using the file key of the first file, to generate ciphertext of the first file, wherein a header of the ciphertext of the first file comprises an authorized fixed identity information and the file-key ciphertext;
obtaining the first process identifier and determining first fixed identity information corresponding to the first process identifier, wherein the first fixed identity information includes a parameter that identifies a fixed attribute of an application program corresponding to the first file; and
determining that the first fixed identity information matches the authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, and in response to the determining that the first fixed identity information matches the authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, authenticating the file access request.
2. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the authenticating of the file access request comprises: decrypting the file-key ciphertext by using the first fixed identity information, determining that the decrypting is successful, and in response to determining that the decrypting is successful, authenticating the file access request, wherein the file-key ciphertext is ciphertext of [[a]] the file key used to encrypt the first file.
3. (Cancelled).
4. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 1, wherein before receiving, by the electronic device, the file access request, the method further comprises:
obtaining a process identifier and fixed identity information of a running application program, establishing a correspondence between the process identifier and the fixed identity information, and establishing a correspondence between a newly created file and the fixed identity information.
5. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim [[2]] 1, wherein
the determining that the first fixed identity information matches the authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file comprises:
matching the first fixed identity information with the authorized fixed identity information in the header of the ciphertext of the first file.
6-9. (Cancelled).
10. (Currently Amended) An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program that is stored in the memory and that, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to:
receive a file access request, wherein the file access request includes a first process identifier and a request to access a first file on the electronic device[[;]], wherein before receiving, by the electronic device, the file access request, the electronic device is further caused to:
encrypt a file key of the first file based on a fixed identity information corresponding to the first file and a file system primary key according to a preset key encryption algorithm, to generate a file-key ciphertext, and
encrypt the first file by using the file key of the first file, to generate ciphertext of the first file, wherein a header of the ciphertext of the first file comprises an authorized fixed identity information and the file-key ciphertext;
obtain the first process identifier, and determine first fixed identity information corresponding to the first process identifier, wherein the first fixed identity information includes a parameter that identifies a fixed attribute of an application program corresponding to the first file; and
determine that the first fixed identity information matches authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, and, in response to determining that the first fixed identity information matches the authorized fixed identity information, authenticating the file access request.
11. (Currently Amended) The electronic device of claim 10, wherein the authenticating of the file access request comprises: decrypting the file-key ciphertext by using the first fixed identity information, determining that the decrypting is successful, and when the decrypting is successful, authenticating the file access request, wherein the file-key ciphertext is ciphertext of [[a]] the file key used to encrypt the first file.
12. (Cancelled).
13. (Currently Amended) The electronic device according to claim 10, wherein beforeelectronic device is further caused to:
obtain a process identifier and fixed identity information of a running application program, establishing a correspondence between the process identifier and the fixed identity information, and establishing a correspondence between a newly created file and the fixed identity information.
14. (Currently Amended) The electronic device according to claim [[11]] 10, wherein
the determining that the first fixed identity information matches [[with]] the authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file comprises:
matching the first fixed identity information with the authorized fixed identity information in the header of the ciphertext of the first file.
15. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium comprises a computer program that, when executed by a processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to:
receive a file access request, wherein the file access request includes a first process identifier and a request to access a first file on the electronic device[[;]], wherein before receiving, by the electronic device, the file access request, the electronic device is further caused to:
encrypt a file key of the first file based on a fixed identity information corresponding to the first file and a file system primary key according to a preset key encryption algorithm, to generate a file-key ciphertext, and
encrypt the first file by using the file key of the first file, to generate ciphertext of the first file, wherein a header of the ciphertext of the first file comprises an authorized fixed identity information and the file-key ciphertext;
obtain the first process identifier, and determine first fixed identity information corresponding to the first process identifier, wherein the first fixed identity information includes a parameter that identifies a fixed attribute of an application program corresponding to the first file; and
determine that the first fixed identity information matches the authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, and, in response to determining that the first fixed identity information matches the authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file, authenticating the file access request
16. (Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15, wherein the determine that authentication of the file access request succeeds comprises:
decrypting the file-key ciphertext by using the first fixed identity information, determining that the decrypting is successful, in response to determining that the decrypting is successful authenticating the file access request, wherein the file-key ciphertext is ciphertext of [[a]] the file key used to encrypt the first file.
17. (Cancelled).
18. (Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15, wherein before receiving, by the electronic device, the file access request, the electronic device is further caused to:
obtain a process identifier and fixed identity information of a running application program, establishing a correspondence between the process identifier and the fixed identity information, and establishing a correspondence between a newly created file and the fixed identity information.
19. (Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim [[16]] 15, wherein
the determining that the first fixed identity information matches the [[with]] authorized fixed identity information corresponding to the first file comprises:
matching the first fixed identity information with the authorized fixed identity information in the header of the ciphertext of the first file.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 13-16 and 18-19 are allowed over the cited prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Examiner’s search did not yield any specific references that reasonably, either alone or in combination, would result in a proper rejection of all the claimed features presented in each of the independent claims 1, 10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C 102 or 35 U.S.C.103 with a proper motivation.
Thus, independent claims 1, 10 and 15 are allowed and the corresponding dependent claims depend upon one of the above-mentioned allowed claims are therefore allowed by the virtue of their dependencies.
The closest relevant prior art made of record are:
a)	Umebayashi et al. (US 20040010701 A1), the present invention relates to a data protection program and data protection method for protecting data, and more particularly to a data protection program and data protection method for restricting access to resources to be protected. For example, a data protection program is able to effectively restrict an unauthorized access to a resource to be protected even when the resource to be protected is in a state legitimately accessed by a user. The identification information about a program capable of accessing the resource to be protected is registered in an access permission management table. If an access request to access the resource to be protected is subsequently received, then identification information about a request source program which has outputted the access request is acquired. Then, it is determined whether access to the resource to be protected is permitted or not based on whether the identification information about the request source program has been registered in the access permission management table or not. If access to the resource to be protected is permitted, data in the resource to be protected is processed in response to the access request.
b)	 Yang et al. (US 2018/0102902 A1), the described embodiments relate generally to data access management and in particular relates to managing data access of processes executing on a computer system. In some cases, for each of at least one protected data file, associating that protected data file with the protected file identifier may include storing that protected data file in a file location within a predefined file directory area on the at least one storage module; and the protected file identifier for that protected data file can be the predefined file directory area. So that, when a read request is received from a requesting process P having a corresponding process ID. The read request also includes file identifying information enabling the data protection module to identify the data file F being requested (e.g. by identifying the file path of the data file). The data protection module may also identify requested data D from the file F that is being requested by process P.
c)	Nakamura et al. (US 20150363189 A1) discloses to monitor processes generated by an installer for the software when the software is installed. The operation unit generates, based on file information about files accessed by the generated processes and the relationships between the processes, software configuration information associating the file information about the files with the software.
d)	Sasaki et al. (US 5870477 A) discloses that when the IDs coincide with each
other, so that it is judged that decryption is possible. Such as, the ciphertext data is
deciphered using the deciphered management key (step 348), and plaintext data
obtained by the decryption is displayed on the display unit 2.
e) 	Sun, Zhe (CN 108228770 A) discloses to determine the application package
name corresponding to the id of the corresponding relation of the process name and the
determination of the target file corresponding to the application package name.
However, none of the closest cited prior art of record as mentioned above
teaches or suggests, either taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor
renders obvious, all of the claimed features presented in each of the independent
claims 1, 10 and 15. Such as,
with regards to the independent claim 1, the claim is drawn to a file access right authentication method for an electronic device, and recites limitations “wherein before receiving, by the electronic device, the file access request, the method further comprises: encrypting a file key of the first file based on a fixed identity information corresponding to the first file and a file system primary key according to a preset key encryption algorithm, to generate a file-key ciphertext, and encrypting the first file by using the file key of the first file, to generate ciphertext of the first file, wherein a header of the ciphertext of the first file comprises an authorized fixed identity information and the file-key ciphertext; determining first fixed identity information corresponding to the first process identifier, wherein the first fixed identity information includes a parameter that identifies a fixed attribute of an application program corresponding to the first file; and”, which are not disclosed in the closest cited prior art of record. For this reason, the claim limitations as recited in the independent claim 1 along with other features taken as a whole are allowable over the cited prior art of record.
with regards to the independent claim 10, the claim is drawn to an electronic device, and recites limitations “wherein before receiving, by the electronic device, the file access request, the electronic device is further caused to: encrypt a file key of the first file based on a fixed identity information corresponding to the first file and a file system primary key according to a preset key encryption algorithm, to generate a file-key ciphertext, and encrypt the first file by using the file key of the first file, to generate ciphertext of the first file, wherein a header of the ciphertext of the first file comprises an authorized fixed identity information and the file-key ciphertext; determine first fixed identity information corresponding to the first process identifier, wherein the first fixed identity information includes a parameter that identifies a fixed attribute of an application program corresponding to the first file; and”, which are not disclosed in the closest cited prior art of record. For this reason, the claim limitations as recited in the independent claim 10 along with other features taken as a whole are allowable over the cited prior art of record.
with regards to the independent claim 15, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium, and recites limitations “wherein before receiving, by the electronic device, the file access request, the electronic device is further caused to: encrypt a file key of the first file based on a fixed identity information corresponding to the first file and a file system primary key according to a preset key encryption algorithm, to generate a file-key ciphertext, and encrypt the first file by using the file key of the first file, to generate ciphertext of the first file, wherein a header of the ciphertext of the first file comprises an authorized fixed identity information and the file-key ciphertext; determine first fixed identity information corresponding to the first process identifier, wherein the first fixed identity information includes a parameter that identifies a fixed attribute of an application program corresponding to the first file; and”, which are not disclosed in the closest cited prior art of record. For this reason, the claim limitations as recited in the independent claim 15 along with other features taken as a whole are allowable over the cited prior art of record.
Thus, independent claims 1, 10 and 15 along with their dependent claims are allowed over the cited prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submission should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” In event of any post-allowance papers (e.g., IDS, 312 amendments, petition, etc.), Applicant is exhorted to mail papers to the Production Control Branch in Publications or faxed to post-allowance papers correspondence branch at (703) 308-5864 to expedite issuing process or call PUB’s Customer service if any questions at (703) 305-8497.
Conclusion

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20130246806A1: Claims:
An information processing apparatus, comprising: an application operation file information holding unit for holding application operation file information that is information related to a file that has been operated by an application since activation of the application and includes information indicating whether the application has opened one or more encryption files; and an encryption determination unit for, with respect to an arbitrary file closed by an arbitrary application, determining whether the file is subjected to be encrypted based on the application operation file information held in the application operation file information holding unit in relation to the application having performed the closing operation of the file.
an application operation file information holding unit for holding application operation file information that is information related to a file that has been operated by an application since activation of the application and includes information indicating whether the application has opened one or more encryption files; and
an encryption determination unit for, with respect to an arbitrary file closed by an arbitrary application, determining whether the file is subjected to be encrypted based on the application operation file information held in the application operation file information holding unit in relation to the application having performed the closing operation of the file.
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein, when the application having performed the closing operation of the arbitrary file has opened one or more encrypted files since activation of the application, the encryption determination unit determines that the file is a file to be encrypted.
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 , further comprising: a file operation detection unit for detecting a predetermined file operation request from an application; an application operation file information registration unit for, when the file operation detection unit detects that an application has performed a file operation request associated with an opening operation of a file, acquiring information of the application that is a requestor of the file operation request and information of the file to be operated, and updating the application operation file information to be held in the application operation file information holding unit; and an encryption unit for performing encryption processing of a specified file, wherein the encryption determination unit, when the file operation detection unit detects that the application has performed a file operation request associated with a closing operation of a file, determines whether the file to be operated is subjected to be encrypted based on the application operation file information held in the application operation file information holding unit with regard to the application as the requestor of the file operation, and the encryption unit performs the encryption processing of the file to be encrypted determined by the encryption determination unit.
a file operation detection unit for detecting a predetermined file operation request from an application;
an application operation file information registration unit for, when the file operation detection unit detects that an application has performed a file operation request associated with an opening operation of a file, acquiring information of the application that is a requestor of the file operation request and information of the file to be operated, and updating the application operation file information to be held in the application operation file information holding unit; and
an encryption unit for performing encryption processing of a specified file,
wherein the encryption determination unit, when the file operation detection unit detects that the application has performed a file operation request associated with a closing operation of a file, determines whether the file to be operated is subjected to be encrypted based on the application operation file information held in the application operation file information holding unit with regard to the application as the requestor of the file operation, and
the encryption unit performs the encryption processing of the file to be encrypted determined by the encryption determination unit.
The information processing apparatus according to claim 3 , wherein, when the file operation detection unit detects that an application has performed a file operation request associated with an opening operation of a file, and when the file to be operated is an encrypted file and the application is an application authorized to perform decryption of the encrypted file, and has correctly performed decryption, the application operation file information registration unit causes the application operation file information holding unit to hold the application operation file information including information indicating the application has opened one or more encrypted files.
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 , further comprising: a file control information holding unit for holding a file handle of a file in association with information identifying an application opening the file.
a file control information holding unit for holding a file handle of a file in association with information identifying an application opening the file.
An information processing apparatus, comprising: an application operation file information holding unit for holding application operation file information that is information related to a file operated by an application since activation of the application, and includes information indicating minimum authority that is the lowest authority among authorities granted to the file opened by the application; and an authority determination unit for, with respect to a newly stored arbitrary file or an arbitrary file opened by an arbitrary application, determining operation authority to be authorized to the file based on the application operation file information held in the application operation file information holding unit in relation to the application having performed a closing operation or the opening operation of the file.
an application operation file information holding unit for holding application operation file information that is information related to a file operated by an application since activation of the application, and includes information indicating minimum authority that is the lowest authority among authorities granted to the file opened by the application; and
an authority determination unit for, with respect to a newly stored arbitrary file or an arbitrary file opened by an arbitrary application, determining operation authority to be authorized to the file based on the application operation file information held in the application operation file information holding unit in relation to the application having performed a closing operation or the opening operation of the file.
A file encryption determination method, comprising: causing a storage device to hold application operation file information that is information related to a file operated by an application since activation of the application and includes information indicating whether the application has opened one or more encrypted files; and determining by an information processing apparatus, with respect to an arbitrary file closed by an arbitrary application, whether the file is subjected to be encrypted based on the application operation file information held in the storage device with regard to the application having performed the closing operation of the file.
causing a storage device to hold application operation file information that is information related to a file operated by an application since activation of the application and includes information indicating whether the application has opened one or more encrypted files; and
determining by an information processing apparatus, with respect to an arbitrary file closed by an arbitrary application, whether the file is subjected to be encrypted based on the application operation file information held in the storage device with regard to the application having performed the closing operation of the file.
Ref US20160196442A1: Claims:
A method comprising: identifying, by a first process, a command in a command queue, the command from a second process and indicating an action on secure data; determining whether the command is permitted based on the action and a user credential; and responsive to determining the command is not permitted, removing, by the first process, the command from the command queue.
identifying, by a first process, a command in a command queue, the command from a second process and indicating an action on secure data;
determining whether the command is permitted based on the action and a user credential; and
responsive to determining the command is not permitted, removing, by the first process, the command from the command queue.
The method of claim 1 , wherein identifying the command comprises identifying an entry in the command queue associated with a secure storage location, and identifying the software application based on the entry.
The method of claim 2 , wherein identifying the entry comprises identifying a path on a computer-readable medium for the secure storage location or a process identifier of a software application accessing the secure data.
The method of claim 2 , wherein the secure storage location comprises a separately-mountable partition of a computer-readable medium.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the secure data comprises data stored within a secure storage location, and wherein identifying the command comprises identifying an entry in the command queue associated with a process identifier of a process accessing the secure data.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the command queue comprises an operating system command queue.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the command queue comprises an application server command queue.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the command queue comprises a virtual machine command queue.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising, responsive to determining the command is permitted, not removing the command from the command queue.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the command comprises at least one of a save command, a save as command, an open command, a move command, a rename command, a print command, a copy command, a cut command, a paste command, an email command, a screenshot command, a rename command, or a share command.
A device comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; a processor in communication with the non-transitory computer readable medium, the processor configured to: monitor, by a first process, a command queue to identify commands from other processes, at least one of the commands indicating an action on secure data; access one or more access rules to determine whether the at least one command is permitted; and responsive to a determination the command is not permitted, remove the command from the command queue.
a non-transitory computer-readable medium;
a processor in communication with the non-transitory computer readable medium, the processor configured to: monitor, by a first process, a command queue to identify commands from other processes, at least one of the commands indicating an action on secure data; access one or more access rules to determine whether the at least one command is permitted; and responsive to a determination the command is not permitted, remove the command from the command queue.
monitor, by a first process, a command queue to identify commands from other processes, at least one of the commands indicating an action on secure data;
access one or more access rules to determine whether the at least one command is permitted; and
responsive to a determination the command is not permitted, remove the command from the command queue.
The device of claim 11 , wherein the processor is further configured to: identify an entry in the command queue associated with a secure storage location, and identify the software application based on the entry, to identify the command.
identify an entry in the command queue associated with a secure storage location, and
identify the software application based on the entry, to identify the command.
The device of claim 12 , wherein the processor is further configured to identify a path on a computer-readable medium for the secure storage location to identify the entry.
The device of claim 12 , wherein the secure storage location comprises a separately-mountable partition of a computer-readable medium.
The device of claim 11 , wherein the secure data comprises data stored within a secure storage location, and wherein the processor is further configured to identify an entry in the command queue associated with a process identifier of a process accessing the secure data to identify the command.
The device of claim 11 , wherein the command queue comprises an operating system command queue.
The device of claim 11 , wherein the processor is further configured to not remove the command from the command queue if the command is permitted.
The device of claim 11 , wherein the command comprises at least one of a save command, a save as command, an open command, a move command, a rename command, a print command, a copy command, a cut command, a paste command, an email command, a screenshot command, a rename command, or a share command.
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code, the program code comprising monitoring software executable by a processor, the monitoring software configured to: monitor a command queue to identify commands from other processes; identify a command indicating an action on secure data; transmit a request to determine whether the command is permitted; and responsive to a response to the request indicating that the command is not permitted, remove the command from the command queue.
monitor a command queue to identify commands from other processes;
identify a command indicating an action on secure data;
transmit a request to determine whether the command is permitted; and
responsive to a response to the request indicating that the command is not permitted, remove the command from the command queue.
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 , wherein the program code further comprises program code for access rules software executable by a processor, the access rules software configured to: access an access rules data store, the access rules data store configured to store one or more rules associated with commands or user credentials; receive requests to determine whether commands associated with the requests are permitted; determine whether the commands are permitted based on the respective request and the one or more rules; and transmit a response message to the respective request.
access an access rules data store, the access rules data store configured to store one or more rules associated with commands or user credentials;
receive requests to determine whether commands associated with the requests are permitted;
determine whether the commands are permitted based on the respective request and the one or more rules; and
transmit a response message to the respective request.
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 , wherein the monitoring software is further configured to: identify an entry in the command queue associated with a secure storage location; and identify the command based on the entry.
identify an entry in the command queue associated with a secure storage location; and
identify the command based on the entry.
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21 , wherein the monitoring software is further configured to identify a path on a computer-readable medium for the secure storage location or a process identifier of a software application accessing the secure data to identify the command.
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21 , wherein the secure storage location comprises a separately-mountable partition of a computer-readable medium.
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 , wherein the secure data comprises data stored within a secure storage location, and wherein the monitoring software is further configured to identify an entry in the command queue associated with a process identifier of a process accessing the secure data to identify the command.
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 , wherein the command queue comprises an operating system command queue.
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 , wherein the monitoring software is further configured to, responsive to a determination that the command is permitted, not remove the command from the command queue.
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 , wherein the command comprises at least one of a save command, a save as command, an open command, a move command, a rename command, a print command, a copy command, a cut command, a paste command, an email command, a screenshot command, a rename command, or a share command.
Ref US20040010701A1: Claims:
A data protection program for protecting data stored in a resource to be protected, said data protection program enabling a computer to carry out a processing sequence comprising: registering identification information about a program capable of accessing said resource to be protected in an access permission management table; if an access request to access said resource to be protected is received, acquiring identification information about a request source program which has outputted said access request; determining whether access to said resource to be protected is permitted or not based on whether the identification information about said request source program has been registered in said access permission management table or not; and if access to said resource to be protected is permitted, processing data in said resource to be protected in response to said access request.
registering identification information about a program capable of accessing said resource to be protected in an access permission management table; if an access request to access said resource to be protected is received, acquiring identification information about a request source program which has outputted said access request;
determining whether access to said resource to be protected is permitted or not based on whether the identification information about said request source program has been registered in said access permission management table or not; and
if access to said resource to be protected is permitted, processing data in said resource to be protected in response to said access request.
The data protection program according to claim 1 , wherein when the data in said resource to be protected is processed, if said access request is a request to write data, then data transferred from a process which executes said request source program is encrypted and then stored in said resource to be protected, and if said access request is a request to read data, data from said resource to be protected is decrypted and then transferred to a process which executes said request source program.
The data protection program according to claim 2 , wherein said processing sequence further comprises: registering a key associated with the identification information about the program in said access permission management table; and when data in said resource to be protected is to be encrypted and decrypted, encrypting and decrypting the data using said key registered in said access permission management table in association with the identification information about the request source program.
registering a key associated with the identification information about the program in said access permission 
[Truncated to input limit]