Office Action 2: Notice of Allowance (2024-10-28)

CLAIMS:
LISTING OF CLAIMS

1\. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
receiving, using a computer system, an instruction to define or modify a permission constraint corresponding to one or more files accessible via a data management system;
determining a period of time during which the defined or modified permission constraint is to apply to the one or more files;
determining that the one or more files are to be deleted from the data management system following completion of the period of time;
storing, in one or more data stores, a permission-instruction data set representing the permission constraint and a flag indicating that the one or more files are to be deleted following completion of the period of time;
receiving a request to access at least one of the one or more files from the data management system after the period of time has ended but before the at least one of the one or more files is deleted from the data management system;
based at least in part on the request:accessing the permission-instruction data set to determine that the at least one of the one or more files is to be deleted following completion of the period of time;
detecting that the period of time has ended; and in response to the detection, responding to the request indicating that the at least one of the one or more files is not available even though the at least one file was not yet deleted from the data management system; and
deleting the one or more files after receiving the request.
2\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
subsequent to an end of the period of time, intercepting a user request to access a particular file of the one or more files;
querying the one or more data stores to determine whether the requested access is to be permitted;

determining, in response to the query, that the permission-instruction data set corresponds to the particular file;
outputting a response to the user request, wherein the response indicates that the particular file is not accessible.
3\. (Original) The method of claim 2, wherein an operating system performs the intercepting the user request, the querying the data store, and the determining that the permission-instruction data set corresponds to the particular file.
4\. (Original) The method of claim 2, further comprising:
detecting that the permission-instruction data set includes the flag indicating that the one or more files are to be deleted following completion of the period of time;
wherein the detecting that the period of time has ended occurs in response to detecting that the permission-instruction data set includes the flag.
5\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more files are deleted using a background deletion process that scans the one or more data stores for permission- instruction data sets that include the flag and corresponding to a period of time that has ended.
6\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the one or more files are to be deleted following completion of the period of time includes determining that a same or different instruction indicates that the one or more files are to be deleted following completion of the period of time.
7\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the instruction indicates that files having a particular attribute are to be locked to prevent modification for a particular duration of time from a specified type of trigger event, wherein each of the one or more files has the particular attribute, and wherein the period of time begins at an occurrence of a particular trigger event associated with the one or more files and has the particular duration of time.
8\. (Currently Amended) A system comprising:
one or more data processors; and

a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing instructions which, when executed on the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform a set of actions including:receiving an instruction to define or modify a permission constraint corresponding to one or more files accessible via a data management system;
determining a period of time during which the defined or modified permission constraint is to apply to the one or more files;
determining that the one or more files are to be deleted from the data management system following completion of the period of time;
storing, in one or more data stores, a permission-instruction data set representing the permission constraint and a flag indicating that the one or more files are to be deleted following completion of the period of time;
receiving a request to access at least one of the one or more files from the data management system after the period of time has ended but before the at least one of the one or more files is deleted from the data management system;
based at least in part on the request:accessing the permission-instruction data set to determine that the at least one of the one or more files is to be deleted following completion of the period of time;
detecting that the period of time has ended; and in response to the detection, responding to the request indicating that the at least one of the one or more files is not available even though the at least one file was not yet deleted from the data management system; and
deleting the one or more files after receiving the request.
9\. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 8, wherein the set of actions further includes:
subsequent to an end of the period of time, intercepting a user request to access a particular file of the one or more files;
querying the one or more data stores to determine whether the requested access is to be permitted;

determining, in response to the query, that the permission-instruction data set corresponds to the particular file;
outputting a response to the user request, wherein the response indicates that the particular file is not accessible.

10\. (Original) The system of claim 9, wherein an operating system performs the intercepting the user request, the querying the data store, and the determining that the permission-instruction data set corresponds to the particular file.

11\. (Original) The system of claim 9, wherein the set of actions further includes:
detecting that the permission-instruction data set includes the flag indicating that the one or more files are to be deleted following completion of the period of time;
wherein the detecting that the period of time has ended occurs in response to detecting that the permission-instruction data set includes the flag.

12\. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more files are deleted using a background deletion process that scans the one or more data stores for permission- instruction data sets that include the flag and corresponding to a period of time that has ended.

13\. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the determining that the one or more files are to be deleted following completion of the period of time includes determining that a same or different instruction indicates that the one or more files are to be deleted following completion of the period of time.

14\. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the instruction indicates that files having a particular attribute are to be locked to prevent modification for a particular duration of time from a specified type of trigger event, wherein each of the one or more files has the particular attribute, and wherein the period of time begins at an occurrence of a particular trigger event associated with the one or more files and has the particular duration of time.

15\. (Currently Amended) A computer-program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions configured to cause one or more data processors to perform a set of actions including:

receiving an instruction to define or modify a permission constraint corresponding to one or more files accessible via a data management system;
determining a period of time during which the defined or modified permission constraint is to apply to the one or more files;
determining that the one or more files are to be deleted from the data management system following completion of the period of time;
storing, in one or more data stores, a permission-instruction data set representing the permission constraint and a flag indicating that the one or more files are to be deleted following completion of the period of time;
receiving a request to access at least one of the one or more files from the data management system after the period of time has ended but before the at least one of the one or more files is deleted from the data management system;
based at least in part on the request:accessing the permission-instruction data set to determine that the at least one of the one or more files is to be deleted following completion of the period of time;
detecting that the period of time has ended; and
in response to the detection, responding to the request indicating that the at least one of the one or more files is not available even though the at least one file was not yet deleted from the data management system; and
deleting the one or more files after receiving the request.

16\. (Currently Amended) The computer-program product of claim 15, wherein the set of actions further includes:
subsequent to an end of the period of time, intercepting a user request to access a particular file of the one or more files;
querying the one or more data stores to determine whether the requested access is to be permitted;
determining, in response to the query, that the permission-instruction data set corresponds to the particular file;
outputting a response to the user request, wherein the response indicates that the particular file is not accessible.

17\. (Original) The computer-program product of claim 16, wherein an operating system performs the intercepting the user request, the querying the data store, and the determining that the permission-instruction data set corresponds to the particular file.

18\. (Original) The computer-program product of claim 16, wherein the set of actions further includes:
detecting that the permission-instruction data set includes the flag indicating that the one or more files are to be deleted following completion of the period of time;
wherein the detecting that the period of time has ended occurs in response to detecting that the permission-instruction data set includes the flag.

19\. (Original) The computer-program product of claim 15, wherein the one or more files are deleted using a background deletion process that scans the one or more data stores for permission-instruction data sets that include the flag and corresponding to a period of time that has ended

20\. (Original) The computer-program product of claim 15, wherein the determining that the one or more files are to be deleted following completion of the period of time includes determining that a same or different instruction indicates that the one or more files are to be deleted following completion of the period of time.

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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to communications filed on 9/20/2024.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to teach, neither singly nor in combination, the claimed limitations of “receiving a request to access at least one of the one or more files from the data management system after the period of time has ended but before the at least one of the one or more files is deleted from the data management system; based at least in part on the request: accessing the permission-instruction data set to determine that the at least one of the one or more files is to be deleted following completion of the period of time; detecting that the period of time has ended; and in response to the detection, responding to the request indicating that the at least one of the one or more files is not available even though the at least one file was not yet deleted from the data management system; and deleting the one or more files after receiving the request” as recited in claim 1 and similarly stated in claim(s) 8 and 15. These limitations, in conjunction with other limitations in the independent claim(s), are not specifically disclosed or remotely suggested in the prior art of record. A review of claim(s) 1-20 indicates claim(s) 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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 submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
This listing of claims will replace all prior versions and listings of claims in the
application. Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are amended. No claims are added. Hence, claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of claims in view of the amendments and arguments.
Q 101 Rejection
Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to a judicial exception.
Office Action,
p
During the interview of Sept. 18, 2024, the parties discussed the technical complexity of the proposed amendments as presented herein, which recite, in part: "receiving a request to access at least one of the one or more files from the data management system after the period of time has ended but before the at least one of the one or more files is deleted from the data management system; based at least in part on the request: accessing the permission-instruction data set to determine that the at least one of the one or more files is to be deleted following completion of the period of time; detecting that the period of time has ended; and in response to the detection, responding to the request indicating that the at least one of the one or more files is not available even though the at least one file was not yet deleted from the data management system; and deleting the one or more files after receiving the request." At the conclusion of the interview, Examiner Grijalva Lobos agreed that the proposed amendments overcome the rejections but indicated that further search and consideration would be required upon the filing of this formal reply.
The claims as presented herein are deeply rooted in computer technology and not directed to an abstract idea. At least the following features, as recited in the claims, do not make sense outside of a machine environment and have no analogous human or mental performance counterparts: "accessing the permission-instruction data set to determine that the at least one of the one or more files is to be deleted following completion of the period of time; detecting that the period of time has ended; and in response to the detection, responding to the request indicating that the at least one of the one or more files is not available even though the at least one file was not yet deleted from the data management system; and deleting the one or more files after receiving the request." At least these features also define an inventive concept that is
significantly more than any abstract idea.
Q 103 Rejection
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0097190 of Scrivano et al. (hereinafter "Scrivano") in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0380155 of Sarferaz et al. (hereinafter "Sarferaz").
Office Action,
p
Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Scrivano in view of Sarferaz, as respectively applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0237148 of Perlman et al. (hereinafter "Perlman").
Office Action,
p
During the interview of Sept. 18, 2024, the parties discussed the technical complexity of the proposed amendments as presented herein, which recite, in part: "receiving a request to access at least one of the one or more files from the data management system after the period of time has ended but before the at least one of the one or more files is deleted from the data management system; based at least in part on the request: accessing the permission-instruction data set to determine that the at least one of the one or more files is to be deleted following completion of the period of time; detecting that the period of time has ended; and in response to the detection, responding to the request indicating that the at least one of the one or more files is not available even though the at least one file was not yet deleted from the data management system; and deleting the one or more files after receiving the request." At the conclusion of the interview, Examiner Grijalva Lobos agreed that the proposed amendments overcome the rejections but indicated that further search and consideration would be required upon the filing of this formal reply.
For reasons discussed above with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, the claims define an
inventive concept that is new and non-obvious in light of the art of record. Scrivano, Sarferaz, and Perlman, taken individually or in any asserted combination, do not reasonably suggest at least: "accessing the permission-instruction data set to determine that the at least one of the one or more files is to be deleted following completion of the period of time; detecting that the period of time has ended; and in response to the detection, responding to the request indicating that the at least one of the one or more files is not available even though the at least one file was not yet deleted from the data management system; and deleting the one or more files after receiving the request."
Sarferaz (par. 53) mentions that, "[i]f data is deleted from the application data 232, or removed from the application data and placed in the archive 240, it is no longer available to the data view 224." Determining that deleted or re-located data is unavailable, as mentioned in Sarferaz, does not suggest "responding to the request indicating that the at least one of the one or more files is not available even though the at least one file was not yet deleted from the data management system; and deleting the one or more files after receiving the request," as recited in the claims. The art of record, taken individually or in any asserted combination, does not reasonably suggest at least this feature as well as the technical synergies between this feature and the remaining features of the claims. For at least these additional reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims would not have been obvious in light of the art of record and respectfully requests withdrawal of the pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of pending claims in view of the amendments.
Note that merely because Applicant does not specifically argue that certain limitations of a claim are not in the references is not a concession that a reference or combination of references includes the limitations. That Applicant does not contradict a particular statement made in the Office action is not a concession that Applicant agrees with it. Further, merely because Applicant does not separately argue the patentability of every dependent claim is not a concession that there are not additional reasons for patentability of these dependent claims.
Applicant believes every assertion by the Office Action has been addressed. However, in the interest of clarity and brevity, Applicant may not have asserted every available argument for each assertion made in the Office Action. Applicant's silence regarding any such assertion does not constitute any admission or acquiescence. Applicant reserves all rights not exercised in connection with this response, such as the right to challenge or rebut any tacit or explicit characterization of any reference or of any of the present claims, the right to challenge or rebut any asserted factual or legal basis of any of the rejections, the right to swear behind any cited reference such as provided under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 or otherwise, or the right to assert co- ownership of any cited reference.
Applicant does not admit that any of the cited references or any other references of record is relevant to the present claims, or that they constitute prior art. To the extent that any rejection or assertion is based upon the Examiner's personal knowledge, rather than any objection evidence of record as manifested by a cited prior art reference, Applicant timely objects to such
reliance on Official Notice, and reserves all rights to request that the Examiner provide a reference or affidavit in support of such assertion, as required by M.P.E.P. § 2144.03.
Based on the amendments and arguments, Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner to allow all pending claims.
CONCLUSION