DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 08 April 2026. By this response, Claims 1-6 and 8-20 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims do not clearly comply fully with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) that amended claims must include markings indicating the changes made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. In particular, at least Claim 13 appears to include text, marked as added with underlining, which was previously present in the claim. As a courtesy and to advance prosecution, the amendments have been entered and treated as though they were fully in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(c). Applicant is reminded that all subsequent amendments must fully comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Applicant's arguments filed 08 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to Figure 15 as requiring a prior art label, Applicant merely repeats the argument that Figure 15 describes a computing environment and devices interconnected with the allegedly novel and non-obvious system described throughout the specification (see page 17 of the present response, citing paragraph 0035 of the present specification). This argument was addressed in the previous Office action (see pages 2-3 of the Office action mailed 07 January 2026). The cited paragraph 0035 merely states that specific details are set forth and the disclosed techniques may be practiced without those details, and that well-known structures and devices are shown in block diagram form to avoid obscuring the disclosed techniques. This does not clearly relate to the depictions of Figure 15. The elements depicted in Figure 15 and described in paragraphs 0108-0114 are all shown and described as conventional computer components and are not clearly linked to the described invention.
Regarding the objection to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, Applicant repeats the argument that paragraphs 0012-0014 and 0043-0044 delineate a relationship between classifying a content item as a particular type of sensitive content item and determining to perform the protective action based on the content item being the particular type of content item (see pages 17-18 of the present response). However, this does not clearly address the outstanding objection relating to “determining, concurrently with determining that the first content item contains a first type of sensitive information, that a second content item on a second client device contains a second type of sensitive information” (see page 6 of the previous Office action).
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, and with reference to the amended independent claims relating to the analysis under Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues that providing for display on a graphical user interface an opt-in element for performing sensitive information protective actions and displaying selectable types of content items for which to perform the sensitive information protective actions is not a process that can be practically performed in the human mind (see pages 18-19 of the present response). However, although such steps related to displaying various elements in a GUI have been added to the claim, the addition of such steps does not change the Prong One determination that the claims also recite steps of determining that content items are sensitive and determining to perform the sensitive information protective actions only require simple comparisons of data, which do still fall into the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. Prong One considers whether the claim recites any abstract idea, and the claim still recites these steps of determining, which constitute abstract mental processes.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues that the claims “are directed to specific technical steps to solve problems in a technical environment” and provide an improvement to a technology or technical field and asserts that providing an opt-in element for performing sensitive information protective actions provides increased information security (pages 19-20 of the present response, citing paragraph 0036 of the specification). However, first, Applicant does not explain the nexus between the claim element and the asserted improvement; i.e. Applicant does not explain how the specific step increases security. Applicant also argues that the claims recite a practical application based on Core Wireless because the claims allegedly “increase the speed and ease with which a user can access a desired functionality, such as performing sensitive information protective actions on content items” (pages 20-21 of the present response). However, the present claims do not clearly appear to be analogous to those of Core Wireless because the present claims do not require a summary of a limited list of data or an analogous streamlining of the data presented; rather, the amendments to the claims provide additional steps of displaying additional data for selection. Further, Applicant again does not explain the nexus between the claim elements and the asserted improvement. Applicant has not explained how the specific steps increase the speed and ease of accessing desired functionality, nor does the specification appear to contemplate the speed or ease of any particular functionality. Therefore, the claims as amended do not clearly integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application as detailed below in the updated rejection.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement, and with respect to independent Claims 1, 8, and 13, Applicant argues that paragraph 0048 of the specification, as previously cited, provides support for the claims as amended (pages 21-22 of the present response). Although Applicant asserts that determining that a second content item contains a second type of sensitive information concurrently with determining that a first content item contains a first type of sensitive information “is a form of concurrently interacting with multiple client devices as recited by the specification” (page 21 of the present response), the general description of concurrent network connections and concurrent interactions with multiple client devices in paragraph 0048 does not clearly convey with reasonable clarity that the inventor was in possession of the more detailed limitations of the invention as claimed, namely making these determinations that multiple content items contain multiple types of sensitive information concurrently. See MPEP § 2163.02. Applicant has provided no evidence or explanation to suggest that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that a general description of concurrent interactions would extend to determining concurrently that a first content item includes a first type of sensitive information and that a second content item includes a second type of sensitive information.
To the extent that Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are relevant to the new grounds of rejection set forth below, it is noted that Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Further, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In particular, although Applicant generally asserts that Mohamed, individually, does not disclose several limitations of the claims as amended (pages 24-25 of the present response), Applicant provides no explanation or evidence in support of these allegations.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Drawings
The objection to Figure 15 as requiring a prior art label is NOT withdrawn for the reasons detailed above.
Figure 15 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The objection to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is NOT withdrawn for the reasons detailed above, and because the amendments to the claims have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 1, 8, and 13 were previously amended to recite “determining, concurrently with determining that the first content item contains a first type of sensitive information… that a second content item on a second client device contains a second type of sensitive information” or similar limitations. There appears to be no mention in the specification of making these determinations that content items contain types of sensitive information concurrently. Further, Claim 4 has been amended recite generation of first, second, and third sensitive content item classification scores and “determining that the first content item contains the first type of sensitive information according to the first sensitive content item classification score, the second sensitive content item classification score, and the third sensitive content item classification score”. There appears to be no mention of any scores in the specification, nor does there appear to be any description of such a determination based on such scores. Therefore, there is not clear antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter in the specification. For further detail, see below with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 3, line 9, it appears that “not tax content items” may be intended to read “non-tax content items” or “items that are not tax content” or similar. Similarly, in Claim 3, line 11, it appears that “not medical content items” may be intended to read “non-medical content items” or “items that are not medical content” or similar.
In Claim 10, lines 6-7, it appears that “with respect to content item” may be intended to read “with respect to the first content item” or similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to abstract ideas without significantly more is NOT withdrawn for the reasons detailed above.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method that includes providing an opt-in element for display and displaying selectable types of content items, determining that first and second content items are sensitive, receiving first and second requests to perform first and second sensitive information exposing actions on the respective content items, determining to perform first and second types of sensitive information protective actions, and performing the first and second sensitive information protective actions. The steps of determining that the content items are sensitive and determining to perform the sensitive information protective actions only require simple comparisons of data, which could be performed visually, by hand, or mentally. These constitute mental processes, which are one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Abstract ideas are judicial exceptions as per MPEP § 2106.04(I). See also Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, International, et al, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite substantial further action after determining to perform the protective action. Although the claim does recite performing the protective actions, such action could amount to displaying a prompt and warning message to a user (as per Claims 5-7, for example), and such a display is insignificant post-solution activity, i.e. necessary output, because performing the protective action is a necessary consequence of deciding to perform the protective action, as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). Similarly, the steps of receiving the requests to perform the exposing actions are simple data gathering, which is also insignificant extra-solution activity, as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). Further, the steps of providing the opt-in element for display and displaying selectable types of content constitute also constitute insignificant extra-solution activity and general additional data gathering. There is nothing that would result in a particular transformation, as per MPEP § 2106.05(c), nor does the claim require the use of the abstract ideas in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture (noting that the content management system and processors are described in generic terms at a high level), as per MPEP § 2106.05(b). At most, the recitations of the content management system and processor constitute nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The other recitations relating to the system only recite a field of use or technological environment for the abstract idea as per MPEP § 2106.05(h). There are no additional elements that apply or use the abstract ideas in a meaningful way beyond merely linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not directed to a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to the question of a practical application of the judicial exception. The steps of receiving the request and potentially performing the protective action constitute sending and receiving data over a network, which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., and buySAFE. Therefore, the claim as a whole, whether the steps are considered individually or as an ordered combination, is not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is directed to computer-readable storage media storing instructions, where the instructions, when executed, perform functions corresponding substantially to the method of Claim 1. While the claim is directed to a computer-readable storage medium, there is no particular structure recited in the claim; rather, the claim is limited only by its functionality. This functionality is directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to Claim 1. That the claim recites computer instructions does not constitute anything more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the medium of Claim 8 is not directed to significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves.
Claim 13 is directed to a system having functionality corresponding to the method of Claim 1, and also recites an abstract idea for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to Claim 1. The recitations of the processor and computer-readable media storing instructions are at a generic level and constitute nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the system claim is also not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14-20 only recite further detail of the abstract steps/functions of comparing data such as the types of data or content that are sensitive. Therefore, the dependent claims also do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as an ordered combination and as a whole, Claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to abstract ideas without a practical application and without significantly more, as detailed above. Therefore, based on the above analysis, the claimed inventions are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the enablement requirement is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite are NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 13 were previously amended to recite “determining, concurrently with determining that the first content item contains a first type of sensitive information… that a second content item on a second client device contains a second type of sensitive information” or similar limitations. Although Applicant has again cited paragraph 0048 as support for the claims as amended (see page 21 of the present response), this paragraph only states that the content management system can concurrently accept connections from and concurrently interact with multiple client devices. Although this is a general description of concurrent interactions with multiple client devices and Applicant asserts that the concurrent determinations are “a form of concurrently interacting with multiple client devices” (page 21 of the present response), this does not provide clear written description of the further details of concurrent determinations that first and second content items on first and second client devices contain first and second types of sensitive information, and Applicant has not explained how the broad disclosure of concurrent interactions would inherently or implicitly support the more detailed limitations as claimed. There appears to be no mention in the specification of making these determinations that content items contain types of sensitive information concurrently. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
Claim 4 has been amended recite generation of first, second, and third sensitive content item classification scores and “determining that the first content item contains the first type of sensitive information according to the first sensitive content item classification score, the second sensitive content item classification score, and the third sensitive content item classification score”. Although Applicant cites paragraphs 0082-0087 of the specification for support (page 22 of the present response), and these paragraphs generally disclose the use of binary classifiers to determine whether a content item belongs to a particular content type, there appears to be no mention in these paragraphs or elsewhere in the specification of any content item classification scores, and further, there appears to be no description of determining that a content item contains a type of sensitive information (rather than a type of sensitive content, which are distinguished in the specification; for example, see paragraphs 0074-0077) based on content item classification scores. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “in response to determining a selection of the opt-in element” in line 5; however, the claim does not recite such a determination, which appears to constitute a gap in the claim. Similarly, the claim recites “in response to determining a selection of a subset” in line 8 and “in response to determining the selection of the subset” in line 25; however, the claim also does not recite this determination, which appears to constitute a gap in the claim. The claim further recites “a content management system” in line 10; it is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same content management system recited in lines 3-4 or a distinct content management system. This further makes it unclear whether the recitations of “the content management system” in lines 14, 27, and 32 are intended to all refer to the same content management system and/or makes the antecedent basis unclear if there is more than one content management system. The claim additionally recites “further in response to determining that the first content item is a first type of the subset” in lines 12-13. It is not clear what this phrase is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear if it is the determining that a first content item contains a first type of sensitive information or the classifying the first content item that is further in response to the determination that the first content item is of a first type. Similarly, the claim recites “further in response to determining that the second content item is a second type of the subset” in lines 29-30. It is not clear what this phrase is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear if it is the determining that a second content item contains a second type of sensitive information or the classifying the second content item that is further in response to the determination that the second content item is of a second type. Additionally, the phrases “is a first type of the subset” and “is a second type of the subset” are not in clear idiomatic English and are grammatically unclear, although it appears that these may be intended to read, for example, that “the first content item has a first type from the subset” or that “the first content item is of a first type from the subset” and similarly for the second type. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “not content items” in line 7. This is grammatically unclear with respect to what is meant by this phrase.
Claim 4 recites “determining that the first content item contains the first type of sensitive information according to the first sensitive content item classification score, the second sensitive item content item classification score, and the third sensitive content item classification score” in lines 9-11. It is not clear how the content item classification scores (which appear to relate to content types such as contractual, tax, and medical as per Claim 3) could be used determine whether the content item includes the first type of sensitive information (which appears to be orthogonal to the content types as per the examples in paragraph 0075 or Claim 19). This has not been defined in the claims or specification.
Claim 5 recites “the first type of sensitive information protective action comprises one of:” several options in lines 1-2, where the first type of action is applied to the first content item. However, the claim recites “a requirement to confirm sharing the first content item or the second content item” in line 3, and it is not clear how the first protective action would be performed for the second content item.
Claim 8 recites “in response to determining a selection of the opt-in element” in line 7; however, the claim does not recite such a determination, which appears to constitute a gap in the claim. Similarly, the claim recites “in response to determining a selection of a subset” in line 10 and “in response to determining the selection of the subset” in line 26; however, the claim also does not recite this determination, which appears to constitute a gap in the claim. The claim further recites “a content management system” in line 12; it is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same content management system recited in lines 5-6 or a distinct content management system. This further makes it unclear whether the recitations of “the content management system” in lines 15, 28-29, and 33 are intended to all refer to the same content management system and/or makes the antecedent basis unclear if there is more than one content management system. The claim additionally recites “further in response to determining that the second content item is a second type of the subset” in line 31. It is not clear what this phrase is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear if it is the determining that a second content item contains a second type of sensitive information or the classifying the second content item that is further in response to the determination that the second content item is of a second type. Additionally, the phrase “is a second type of the subset” is not in clear idiomatic English and is grammatically unclear, although it appears that this may be intended to read, for example, that “the second content item has a second type from the subset” or that “the second content item is of a second type from the subset”. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “the sensitive information protective action” in line 8. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the first or second protective actions.
Claim 13 recites “in response to determining a selection of the opt-in element” in line 9; however, the claim does not recite such a determination, which appears to constitute a gap in the claim. Similarly, the claim recites “in response to determining a selection of a subset” in line 12 and “in response to determining the selection of the subset” in line 29; however, the claim also does not recite this determination, which appears to constitute a gap in the claim. The claim further recites “further in response to determining that the first content item is a first type of the subset” in lines 16-17. It is not clear what this phrase is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear if it is the determining that a first content item contains a first type of sensitive information or the classifying the first content item that is further in response to the determination that the first content item is of a first type. Similarly, the claim recites “further in response to determining that the second content item is a second type of the subset” in lines 33-34. It is not clear what this phrase is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear if it is the determining that a second content item contains a second type of sensitive information or the classifying the second content item that is further in response to the determination that the second content item is of a second type. Additionally, the phrases “is a first type of the subset” and “is a second type of the subset” are not in clear idiomatic English and are grammatically unclear, although it appears that these may be intended to read, for example, that “the first content item has a first type from the subset” or that “the first content item is of a first type from the subset” and similarly for the second type. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “the first type of sensitive information protective action…comprises displaying an additional graphical user interface for displaying the first type of sensitive information” in lines 2-4. However, it is not clear how this would be a “protective” action as recited in the claim. The claim further recites “responsive to activation of a graphical user interface control, displaying, in the graphical user interface, the sensitive information item” in lines 5-6. First, it is not grammatically clear how this modifies or limits the claimed system, or it is not clear how the system itself would include this step. Further, it is not clear whether “the sensitive information” is intended to refer to the first or second sensitive information.
Claim 17 recites “the graphical user interface” in line 10. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the GUI of Claim 13 or the additional GUI of Claim 17.
Claims not specifically referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamed, US Patent 10380075, in view of Byrne et al, US Patent 8732853, McCorkendale, US Patent 9614826, Giordani et al, US Patent 11238122, and Damick, US Patent 10410016.
In reference to Claim 1, Mohamed discloses a method that includes determining that a first content item contains a first type of sensitive information by classifying the content item with a content item classification based on detecting a first type of sensitive information in the first content item (Figure 3, step 45; see also column 3, lines 19-40, and column 6, lines 10-33); receiving a request to perform a first sensitive information exposing action on the first content item (Figure 3, step 55; see also column 7, lines 3-10); and based on the content item corresponding to the first type of sensitive information item, determining to perform and subsequently performing a first sensitive information protective action (see Figure 3, step 98; see also column 7, lines 11-41, prompting the user; column 7, line 55-column 8, line 30, notification and restriction). However, Mohamed does not explicitly disclose determining to perform a second type of protective action based on a second content item corresponding to a second type of sensitive content information contained in a second content item.
Byrne discloses a method for sharing sensitive content (throughout; see, for example, column 12, lines 11-61) that includes different content protective actions being available for different types of sensitive content (see column 12, lines 1-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mohamed to include different types of content protective actions for different types of content, in order to allow for greater flexibility (see Byrne, column 11, line 50-column 12, line 10).
However, neither Mohamed nor Byrne explicitly discloses making two determinations of types of sensitive content concurrently. McCorkendale discloses a method for protecting sensitive data that includes concurrent performance of functions (see column 5, lines 38-42) and determining whether content from multiple devices contains different types of sensitive content concurrently (column 11, line 52-column 12, line 3, where content from plural cloud storage systems can be viewed simultaneously to determine which files are protected, i.e. sensitive). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mohamed and Byrne to include the simultaneous determinations of McCorkendale, in order to increase security (see McCorkendale, column 3, lines 14-42).
Further, none of Mohamed, Byrne, or McCorkendale explicitly discloses providing an opt-in element for display or displaying selectable types of content items. Giordani discloses a method that includes providing for display on a graphical user interface an opt-in element for performing sensitive information protective actions (see column 16, lines 7-11; see also column 20, line 60-column 21, line 8, providing opt-in and opt-out for actions related to sharing content), and Damick discloses a method that includes displaying on a graphical user interface selectable types of content for which to perform sensitive information protective actions, where determinations of whether content items contain types of sensitive information are in response to determining that the content items are of types of a subset of types of content that have been selected (see Figure 7, step 706, and column 16, line 34-column 17, line 10 display a list of categories of sensitive information for owner to select such that the information in the selected categories will be protected; see also column 13, lines 4-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Mohamed, Byrne, and McCorkendale to include the display of the opt-in as taught by Giordani and the display and use of selectable types for which to perform the protective actions as taught by Damick, in order to give the user additional flexibility and control over the protective actions (see Giordani, column 20, line 60-column 21, line 8, and Damick, column 13, lines 4-20).
In reference to Claim 2, Mohamed, Byrne, McCorkendale, Giordani, and Damick further disclose photo, contractual, tax or medical content (Mohamed, column 3, lines 19-40; see also Damick, column 13, lines 4-20, and column 16, line 62-column 17, line 10).
In reference to Claims 5-7, Mohamed, Byrne, McCorkendale, Giordani, and Damick further disclose that the exposing action is sharing the content item and the protective action includes prompting a user to confirm sharing in a GUI based on display of details about the sensitive content or a type thereof (Mohamed, column 7, lines 11-41, and column 7, line 55-column 8, line 30, notification and restriction; column 8, line 52-column 9, line 11, redaction; see also Damick, column 13, lines 4-20, and column 16, line 62-column 17, line 10, redaction).
Claim 8 is directed to a software implementation of the methods of Claims 1 and 2, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis. Claims 9-12 recite limitations similar to those of Claim 2 and 5-7, and are rejected by a similar rationale.
Claim 13 is directed to a system having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis. Claims 14-20 are similarly directed to systems having functionality corresponding to the software of Claims 9-12, and are rejected by a similar rationale.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamed in view of Byrne, McCorkendale, Giordani, and Damick as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Jaiswal, US Patent 8688601.
Mohamed, Byrne, McCorkendale, Giordani, and Damick disclose everything as detailed with respect to Claim 1 above, and further disclose contractual, tax or medical content (Mohamed, column 3, lines 19-40; see also Damick, column 13, lines 4-20, and column 16, line 62-column 17, line 10); however, none of Mohamed, Byrne, McCorkendale, Giordani, or Damick explicitly discloses the use of binary classifiers. Jaiswal discloses a method that uses binary classifiers to classify the type of sensitive content in textual components of content items (see column 2, lines 21-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Mohamed, Byrne, McCorkendale, Giordani, and Damick to include the classifiers of Jaiswal, in order to provide improvements in classifying the data (see Jaiswal, column 1, lines 46-54).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Slater et al, US Patent 8769609, discloses a system that facilitates protection of selected types of entity.
Richman, US Patent 9111107, discloses a system in which multiple content types can be selected to be protected or trusted.
Qian et al, US Patent 11165755, discloses techniques that include an interface for selecting types of content to protect.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights