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 .
This office action is in response to the applicant’s filing on 08/19/2022. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 17 are independent.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 11-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivov et al. (US PGPub No. 2020/0336519; hereinafter “Ivov”) in view of Noon et al. (US PGPub No. 2021/0344724; hereinafter “Noon”) in view of Malecki et al. (US PGPub No. 2020/0285773; hereinafter “Malecki”).
As per claim 1: Ivov discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
capturing, by one or more processors (one or more hardware processors [Ivov ¶ 0024, Fig. 1, Fig. 4]), media data by sampling a media stream (a video or audio conference having multiple participant client devices is established using multiple media servers … the client computing device sends media data to that particular media server … The media data that is selectively forwarded, or sent to other media servers may be audio data, video data, or both audio and video data [Ivov ¶ 0020]; audio data uses substantially less bandwidth than video data, and therefore a larger amount of audio data streams may be internally forwarded among the media server [Ivov ¶ 0038]) received from a web conferencing application (media application 115 [Ivov ¶ 0025, Fig. 1, media application 115 in client devices]; client computing devices 125 include client software that is programmed to support video conferencing or audio conferencing, such as media application 115 [Ivov ¶ 0032]; Media servers 110 and/or client computing devices 125 may execute media application 115 … Media application is a media application for conferencing [Ivov ¶ 0033]; Media application 115 is programmed or configured to establish a conference with multiple client computing devices and multiple differen media servers … may be an audio or video conference [Ivov ¶ 0034]) during a web conference session between computing devices over a network (Signaling server 120 may use Session Initiatino Protocol (SIP), Extensible Messaging and Prescence Protocol (XMPP), Jingle, and/or any other suitable protocol to assist in establishing a conference [Ivov ¶ 0030]; During a conference connected client computing devices send media data to conference system 105, and conference system 105 directs the media data to the other participants as needed [¶ 0026]; The media servers 110 are communicatively connected to signaling server 120, and/or client computing devices 125 through any kind of computer network using any combination of wired and wireless communication, including, but not limited to: a LAN, a WAN, the Internet, or a company network [Ivov ¶ 0029]), wherein the web conference session comprises content communicated as the media stream from a first computing device to a second computing device during the web conference session (During a conference connected client computing devices send media data to conference system 105, and conference system 105 directs the media data to the other participants as needed … The media data may include video data, audio data, or a combination thereof [Ivov ¶ 0026, Fig. 1, conferencing system, multiple client devices, multiple media servers]);
[generating, by the one or more processors, a series of character codes representative of content of the media data by segmenting the media data and identifying character codes that most closely match respective segments];
[identifying, by the one or more processors, sensitive information included in the series of character codes]; and
[generating, by the one or more processors responsive to identifying the sensitive information], [a notification regarding a potential leak of sensitive information, wherein the notification comprises an indication of the sensitive information identified in the series of character codes].
Ivov discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose generating, by the one or more processors, a series of character codes representative of content of the media data by segmenting the media data and identifying character codes that most closely match respective segments; identifying, by the one or more processors, sensitive information included in the series of character codes; generating, by the one or more processors responsive to identifying the sensitive information. However, Noon teaches generating, by the one or more processors, a series of character codes representative of content of the media data by segmenting the media data and identifying character codes that most closely match respective segments (The content may be contained within an email and may include textual components. In some embodiments, the content scanning engine 206 may perform textual recognition processes on the contents of the email. In some embodiments, the content includes digital images, digital video and the content scanning engine 206 may perform image recognition or pattern recognition processes [Noon ¶ 0110, pattern image recognition or pattern recognition processes]; the content scanning engine 206 may perform optical character recognition on any number of email, email attachments, files, and/or documents including, for example, Adobe Acrobat files, images, and/or the like. It will be appreciated that the content scanning engine 206 may retrieve or receive any number of email, email attachments, files, and/or documents. For example, the content scanning engine 206 may identify the type or file attached to an email in order to determine what kind of processing may be required. The content scanning engine 206 may perform different processing on different file email attachment types. For example, the content scanning engine 206 may perform optical character recognition on image files or Adobe Acrobat files prior to scanning for sensitive information. In another example, the content scanning engine 206 may receive a Microsoft Word or other text file, and immediately scan for sensitive information without performing other operations. The content scanning engine 206 may perform any number of operations based on any type of email, email attachments, files, and/or documents [Noon ¶ 0058, Examiner’s Note: Optical Character Recognition]; It will be appreciated that content (e.g., sensitive and non-sensitive information) may include any kind of digital content or media, including, but not limited to pictures, text, video, sound, graphics, icons, interactive programming, or any combination of the above [Noon ¶ 0050]); identifying, by the one or more processors, sensitive information included in the series of character codes (The content scanning engine 206 may be configured to evaluate the contents of the email, email attachments, files, and/or documents based on security rules to identify sensitive data or suspicious data [Noon ¶ 0057]; Each security policy may contain any number of security each security rule may indicate what information in a document, file, or email should be considered as sensitive. In one example, a security policy may contain any number of keywords or phrases that are associated with being sensitive. Any number of keywords or phrases may be associated as being sensitive. For example, keywords such as, but not limited to, accounting, technical, secret, intellectual property, proprietary, confidential, privileged, and the like may be considered to be indications of sensitivity by one or more security policy … While keywords are described, it will be appreciated that phrases parts of words sentences and/or the like could be identified by one or more policies as being sensitive information. As described herein, keywords may refer to specific words, parts of words, phrases, paragraphs, sentences and/or any combination of words. [Noon ¶ 0059]; the secure content system 106 determines a predetermined number of characters, words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, sections, or the like in front and/or behind each keyword or phrase determined to be sensitive [Noon ¶ 0031]); generating, by the one or more processors responsive to identifying the sensitive information (generate a replacement email which contains a security link based on a security function to replace all or part of the sensitive data … the secure content system 106 may determine a predetermined number of characters, words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, sections, or the like in front and/or behind each keyword or phrase determined to be sensitive. The secure content system 106 may replace/redact the predetermined number of characters, words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, sections, or the like in front and/or behind each keyword or phrase determined to be sensitive [Noon ¶ 0032]). Noon and the instant application are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of protecting sensitive information. Therefore, based on Ivov in view of Noon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Noon to the system of Ivov in order to identify and process digital content, regardless of format, for detection of sensitive information such that it may be further processed for protection. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Ivov in view of Noon discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose a notification regarding a potential leak of sensitive information, wherein the notification comprises an indication of the sensitive information identified in the series of character codes. However, Malecki teaches a notification regarding a potential leak of sensitive information, wherein the notification comprises an indication of the sensitive information identified in the series of character codes (an alert is triggered that sensitive data with the label ‘MAN’ may be logged in clear text form in the log record and thus may be leaking out of the system e.g., with the risks to be exposed to unauthorized personnel because it may be logged in the log file as log entry into text form [Malecki ¶ 0065]; Upon determining a match, issuing an alert indicating that the log entry comprises sensitive data. The alert comprises also an alert label for easy identification by a human operator [Malecki ¶ 0068]). Malecki and the instant application are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of protecting sensitive information. Therefore, based on Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Malecki to the system of Ivov in view of Noon in order to notify an entity for follow up to identification of sensitive information exposure. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 11: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ivov discloses a computer program product, the computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (Computer system 400 further includes a read only memory (ROM) 408 or other static storage device coupled to bus 402 for storing static information and instructions for processor 404. A storage device 410, such as a magnetic disk or optical disk, is provided and coupled to bus 402 for storing information and instructions [Ivov ¶ 0066, ¶ 0068]): The limitations of claim 11 are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and therefore are likewise rejected.
As per claim 12: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki teach all the limitations of claim 11. Furthermore, Ivov discloses wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device (Computer system 400 further includes a read only memory (ROM) 408 or other static storage device coupled to bus 402 for storing static information and instructions for processor 404. A storage device 410, such as a magnetic disk or optical disk, is provided and coupled to bus 402 for storing information and instructions [Ivov ¶ 0066, ¶ 0068]) in a data processing system (hardware processor 404 coupled with bus 402 for processing information [Ivov ¶ 0064]), and wherein the stored program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system (For example, the instructions may initially be carried on a magnetic disk or solid state drive of a remote computer. The remote computer can load the instructions into its dynamic memory and send the instructions over a telephone line using a modem [Ivov ¶ 0071]).
As per claim 17: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ivov discloses a computer system comprising one or more processors and one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (one or more hardware processors [Ivov ¶ 0024, Fig. 1, Fig. 4]; Computer system 400 further includes a read only memory (ROM) 408 or other static storage device coupled to bus 402 for storing static information and instructions for processor 404. A storage device 410, such as a magnetic disk or optical disk, is provided and coupled to bus 402 for storing information and instructions [Ivov ¶ 0066, ¶ 0068]): The limitations of claim 17 are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and therefore are likewise rejected.
Claims 2-3, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki further in view of CHEONG et al. (US PGPub No. 2016/0103830; hereinafter “CHEONG”).
As per claim 2: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki teach all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ivov discloses wherein the media stream comprises a video stream (video or audio conference having multiple participant client devices is established using multiple media servers … the client computing device sends media data to that particular media server … The media data that is selectively forwarded, or sent to other media servers may be audio data, video data, or both audio and video data [Ivov ¶ 0020]; audio data uses substantially less bandwidth than video data, and therefore a larger amount of audio data streams may be internally forwarded among the media server [Ivov ¶ 0038, Examiner’s Note: audio/video stream]), and wherein the capturing of the media data (send and receive media to and from media servers and client computing devices [Ivov ¶ 0035]) [comprises sampling the video stream by extracting a video frame from the video stream].
Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose comprises sampling the video stream by extracting a video frame from the video stream. However, CHEONG teaches comprises sampling the video stream by extracting a video frame from the video stream (The sample scene video may use or extract video or images included in the result of the query. For example, the shot or scene may be generated using image frames acquired after being extracted, at predetermined time intervals, from video frames included in the corresponding contents, or may include images acquired using various methods of collecting images at time points of main screen switching, like images having a rapid screen change including a color change, a motion change, a brightness change, or the like among video frames of the corresponding contents or collecting random images [¶ 0056]). CHEONG and the instant application are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of processing media. Therefore, based on Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of CHEONG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of CHEONG to the system of Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in order to sample key images from the video at times of screen switching. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 3: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of CHEONG teach all the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, CHEONG discloses wherein the sampling of the video stream comprises extracting every Nth video frame, wherein N is a tunable parameter (The sample scene video may use or extract video or images included in the result of the query. For example, the shot or scene may be generated using image frames acquired after being extracted, at predetermined time intervals, from video frames included in the corresponding contents, or may include images acquired using various methods of collecting images at time points of main screen switching, like images having a rapid screen change including a color change, a motion change, a brightness change, or the like among video frames of the corresponding contents or collecting random images [¶ 0056, Examiner’s note: at predetermined time intervals from video frames in the corresponding content]).
As per claim 14: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki teach all the limitations of claim 11. The limitations of claim 14 are substantially similar to claim 2 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
As per claim 15: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of CHEONG teach all the limitations of claim 14. The limitations of claim 15 are substantially similar to claim 3 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
As per claim 18: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki teach all the limitations of claim 17. The limitations of claim 18 are substantially similar to claim 2 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
As per claim 19: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of CHEONG teach all the limitations of claim 18. The limitations of claim 19 are substantially similar to claim 3 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki further in view of CHEONG in view of Marks et al. (US PGPub No. 2020/0320308; hereinafter “Marks”).
As per claim 4: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of CHEONG teach all the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, Ivov and Noon and CHEONG discloses wherein the generating of the series of character codes comprises generating character codes corresponding to a series of characters (the content scanning engine 206 may perform optical character recognition on any number of email, email attachments, files, and/or documents including, for example, Adobe Acrobat files, images, and/or the like [Noon ¶ 0058]) represented by the media data (The media data that is selectively forwarded, or sent to other media servers may be audio data, video data, or both audio and video data [Ivov ¶ 0020]) by performing an optical character recognition (OCR) process on the video frame (the content scanning engine 206 may perform optical character recognition on any number of email, email attachments, files, and/or documents including, for example, Adobe Acrobat files, images, and/or the like [Noon ¶ 0058]; The media data that is selectively forwarded, or sent to other media servers may be audio data, video data, or both audio and video data [Ivov ¶ 0020]; generated using image frames acquired after being extracted, at predetermined time intervals, from video frames included in the corresponding contents, or may include images acquired using various methods of collecting images at time points of main screen switching, like images having a rapid screen change including a color change, a motion change, a brightness change, or the like among video frames of the corresponding contents or collecting random images [CHEONG ¶ 0056]) resulting in [a transcription of text appearing in the video frame, wherein the transcription comprises the series of character codes].
Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of CHEONG discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose a transcription of text appearing in the video frame, wherein the transcription comprises the series of character codes. However, Marks teaches a transcription of text appearing in the video frame, wherein the transcription comprises the series of character codes (The output of this stage is a series of processed and filtered images that can be fed into an optical character recognition (OCR) operation to identify text within each video frame [¶ 0016]; In the OCR operation, each image is processed by an OCR tool that identifies words in the image. In an example embodiment, to speed the process, the images are split into batches. This allows the OCR software tool to run in parallel and greatly reduce the time spent. The OCR software tool identifies a block of text [¶ 0017]; When each frame has been processed, the system now has a completed word list that encapsulates each caption and how it changed over the course of the session, along with the video timing data [¶ 0019]; The word list at this point is temporarily reduced to a text transcript [¶ 0020]). Marks and the instant application are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of video processing. Therefore, based on Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of CHEONG in view of Marks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Marks to the system of Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of CHEONG in order to efficiently OCR multiple video frame images for identification of text (¶ 0017). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki further in view of CHEONG in view of Chen et al. (US PGPub No. 2023/0328336; hereinafter “Chen”).
As per claim 5: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of CHEONG teach all the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, Noon discloses wherein the generating of the series of character codes (the content scanning engine 206 may perform optical character recognition on any number of email, email attachments, files, and/or documents including, for example, Adobe Acrobat files, images, and/or the like [Noon ¶ 0058]) comprises [generating a feature vector using a neural network, wherein the series of character codes represent respective values of the feature vector, wherein the values of the feature vector represent respective local features of the video frame].
Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of CHEONG discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose generating a feature vector using a neural network, wherein the series of character codes represent respective values of the feature vector, wherein the values of the feature vector represent respective local features of the video frame. However, Chen teaches generating a feature vector using a neural network, wherein the series of character codes represent respective values of the feature vector, wherein the values of the feature vector represent respective local features of the video frame (for the video frame feature, frames may be taken as units, and a frame is processed into a feature vector by using a convolution neural network; for the text information such as the task prompt, the video title, the video subtitles and the keyword, words may be taken as units, and each word is processed into a feature vector (that is, each word is separately processed into the form of a feature vector for representation) by using a word vector [¶ 0094]). Chen and the instant are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of video processing. Therefore, based on Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of CHEONG in view of Chen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Chen to the system of Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of CHEONG in order to improve the copy detected in video frames. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki further in view of CHEONG in view of Chen further in view of ZHANG et al. (US PGPub No. 2021/0383518; hereinafter “ZHANG”).
As per claim 6: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of CHEONG in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 5. Furthermore, Noon discloses wherein the identifying of the sensitive information (While keywords are described, it will be appreciated that phrases parts of words sentences and/or the like could be identified by one or more policies as being sensitive information [Noon ¶ 0059]) included in the series of character codes (the content scanning engine 206 may perform optical character recognition on any number of email, email attachments, files, and/or documents including, for example, Adobe Acrobat files, images, and/or the like [Noon ¶ 0058]) comprises: [performing a maxpooling operation on the feature vector resulting in a representative feature of the video frame; and detecting that the representative feature is indicative of sensitive information].
Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki further in view of CHEONG in view of Chen discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose performing a maxpooling operation on the feature vector resulting in a representative feature of the video frame; and detecting that the representative feature is indicative of sensitive information. However, ZHANG teaches performing a maxpooling operation on the feature vector resulting in a representative feature of the video frame (image classification configurable for use in a system for detecting identification documents in images and detecting screenshot images [ZHANG ¶ 0073]; Continuing the description of DL stack 157, the feature extraction layers are convolution layers 245 and pooling layers 255. The disclosed system stores the features and labels 185 output of the feature extraction layers as numeric values that have been processed through many different iterations of convolution operations, saving non-invertible features instead of raw images. The extracted features cannot be inverted to the original image pixel data. That is, the stored features are non-invertible features. By storing these extracted features instead of the input image data, the DL stack does not store the original image pixels which can carry sensitive and private information such as Personally Identifiable Information (PII), Protected Health Information (PHI) and Intellectual Property (IP) [ZHANG ¶ 0074, Fig. 2, max pooling]); and detecting that the representative feature is indicative of sensitive information (Deep learning can detect images with sensitive information without going through an expensive OCR process [ZHANG ¶ 0025]; For private image-borne identification documents and for screenshot images, the CNN architecture model captures features produced as output from the first set of layers and retains the captured features together with respective ground truth labels, thereby eliminating any need to retain images of the private image-borne identification documents. Fully connected layers 265 and SoftMax layers 275 comprise a second set of layers further from the input layer of the CNN which is trained and, together with the first set of layers the model is utilized to detect identification documents in images and detect screenshot images [ZHANG ¶ 0075]). ZHANG and the instant application are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of sensitive information detection. Therefore, based on Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki further in view of CHEONG in view of Chen in view of ZHANG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of ZHANG to the system of Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki further in view of CHEONG in view of Chen in order to identify sensitive information in images without the time and cost of OCR (¶ 0026). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 7-8, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki further in view of Mahler-Haug et al. (US PGPub No. 2024/0354054; hereinafter “Mahler-Haug”).
As per claim 7: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki teach all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ivov and Malecki disclose wherein the media stream comprises an audio stream (The media data that is selectively forwarded, or sent to other media servers may be audio data, video data, or both audio and video data [Ivov ¶ 0020]), and wherein the capturing of the media data (send and receive media to and from media servers and client computing devices [Ivov ¶ 0035]) comprises [extracting a section of the audio stream that comprises audio] that spans a predetermined period of time (As a part of the logging process, it is ensured according to predefined rules-in particular to the one or more data sensitivity rules-that no sensitive data are logged in clear text format in any of the used log files [Malecki ¶ 0034]).
Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose extracting a section of the audio stream that comprises audio. However, Mahler-Haug teaches extracting a section of the audio stream that comprises audio (the audio transcription system 104 may generate text segments cach corresponding to a single audio chunk received at step 209. For example, cach text segment may correspond to a particular utterance segment, as determined at step 205. Additionally or alternatively, the audio transcription system 104 may generate text segments that contain multiple chunks. In generating the text segments, the audio transcription system 104 may perform transcription on a plurality of the audio chunks simultaneously. Accordingly, the audio transcription system 104 may efficiently perform transcription of the audio chunks in a method that may be faster than transcribing the entire audio file as a single file. In one or more instances, the audio transcription system 104 may embed timestamps and/or speaker identifiers into the text segments [Mahler-Haug ¶ 0051]). Mahler-Haug and the instant application are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of audio processing. Therefore, based on Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of Mahler-Haug, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Mahler-Haug to the system of Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in order to efficiently transcribe text segments from a chunk of audio. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 8: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of Mahler-Haug teach all the limitations of claim 7. Furthermore, Mahler-Haug discloses wherein the generating of the series of character codes comprises performing a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm on the section of the audio stream resulting in a transcription of the audio, wherein the transcription comprises the series of character codes (At step 210, the audio transcription system 104 may generate text segments cach corresponding to a single audio chunk received at step 209. For example, cach text segment may correspond to a particular utterance segment, as determined at step 205. Additionally or alternatively, the audio transcription system 104 may generate text segments that contain multiple chunks. In generating the text segments, the audio transcription system 104 may perform transcription on a plurality of the audio chunks simultaneously. Accordingly, the audio transcription system 104 may efficiently perform transcription of the audio chunks in a method that may be faster than transcribing the entire audio file as a single file. In one or more instances, the audio transcription system 104 may embed timestamps and/or speaker identifiers into the text segments [Mahler-Haug ¶ 0051]).
As per claim 16: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki teach all the limitations of claim 11. The limitations of claim 16 are substantially similar to claim 7 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
As per claim 20: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki teach all the limitations of claim 17. The limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to claim 7 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki further in view of Woodward et al. (US PGPub No. 2022/0413734; hereinafter “Woodward”).
As per claim 9: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki teach all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Noon discloses wherein the identifying of the sensitive information (The content scanning engine 206 may be configured to evaluate the contents of the email, email attachments, files, and/or documents based on security rules to identify sensitive data or suspicious data [Noon ¶ 0057]) included in the series of character codes (the content scanning engine 206 may perform optical character recognition on any number of email, email attachments, files, and/or documents including, for example, Adobe Acrobat files, images, and/or the like [Noon ¶ 0058]) comprises [performing a string-searching algorithm on the series of character codes, wherein the string-searching algorithm comprises a regular expression configured to detect sensitive information].
Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose performing a string-searching algorithm on the series of character codes, wherein the string-searching algorithm comprises a regular expression configured to detect sensitive information. However, Woodward teaches performing a string-searching algorithm on the series of character codes, wherein the string-searching algorithm comprises a regular expression configured to detect sensitive information (the PII discovery module may function to implement a plurality of regex-based search and discovery patterns and/or a plurality of PII search heuristics that may function to intelligently inform a search function to patterns or strings of characters and text that may contain PII or other sensitive data within a file, piece of content, and/or document. For example, the PII discovery module may function to implement a regular expression search which may be configured based on one or more pattern-based heuristics or pattern-based rules for identifying strings of text and the like that may include PII or other sensitive data [Woodward ¶ 0101]). Woodward and the instant application are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of protecting sensitive information. Therefore, based on Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of Woodward, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Woodward to the system of Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in order to detect sensitive information using heuristic based search. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of Dan (US Patent No. 11755848; hereinafter “Dan”).
As per claim 10: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki teach all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Noon disclose wherein the identifying of the sensitive information (The content scanning engine 206 may be configured to evaluate the contents of the email, email attachments, files, and/or documents based on security rules to identify sensitive data or suspicious data [Noon ¶ 0057]) included in the series of character codes (the content scanning engine 206 may perform optical character recognition on any number of email, email attachments, files, and/or documents including, for example, Adobe Acrobat files, images, and/or the like [Noon ¶ 0058]) comprises [performing a machine learning process on the series of character codes, wherein the machine learning process comprises a machine learning model trained to detect sensitive information].
Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose performing a machine learning process on the series of character codes, wherein the machine learning process comprises a machine learning model trained to detect sensitive information. However, Dan teaches performing a machine learning process on the series of character codes, wherein the machine learning process comprises a machine learning model trained to detect sensitive information (receiving, by a computing system, text data containing sensitive information, including structured sensitive information and unstructured sensitive information; applying, by the computing system, a rule-based model to identify the structured sensitive information in the text data; applying, by the computing system, a machine learning model to identify the unstructured sensitive information in the text data, wherein the machine learning model has been trained to identify unstructured sensitive information in text [Dan, Column 2, lines 15-31]). Dan and the instant application are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of sensitive information processing. Therefore, based on Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of Dan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Dan to the system of Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in order to identify sensitive information in an inconsistent or unpredictable form (Dan, Column 1, lines 55-57). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki further in view of Saad et al. (US PGPub No. 2020/0210615; hereinafter “Saad”).
As per claim 13: Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki teach all the limitations of claim 11. Furthermore, Ivov discloses wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system (Computer system 400 further includes a read only memory (ROM) 408 or other static storage device coupled to bus 402 for storing static information and instructions for processor 404. A storage device 410, such as a magnetic disk or optical disk, is provided and coupled to bus 402 for storing information and instructions [Ivov ¶ 0066, ¶ 0068]; hardware processor 404 coupled with bus 402 for processing information [Ivov ¶ 0064]; media server [Ivov ¶ 0020, Fig. 1]), and wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system (Various forms of media may be involved in carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions to processor 404 for execution. For example, the instructions may initially be carried on a magnetic disk or solid state drive of a remote computer. The remote computer can load the instructions into its dynamic memory and send the instructions over a telephone line using a modem. A modem local to computer system 400 can receive the data on the telephone line and use an infra-red transmitter to convert the data to an infra-red signal. An infra-red detector can receive the data carried in the infra-red signal and appropriate circuitry can place the data on bus 402. Bus 402 carries the data to main memory 406, from which processor 404 retrieves and executes the instructions. The instructions received by main memory 406 may optionally be stored on storage device 410 either before or after execution by processor 404 [Ivov ¶ 0071]), further comprising: [program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use].
Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use. However, Saad teaches program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use (Embodiments of the present disclosure can also be delivered as part of a service engagement with a client corporation, nonprofit organization, government entity, internal organizational structure, or the like. These embodiments can include configuring a computer system to perform, and deploying software, hardware, and web services that implement, some or all of the methods described herein. These embodiments can also include analyzing the client's operations, creating recommendations responsive to the analysis, building systems that implement subsets of the recommendations, integrating the systems into existing processes and infrastructure, metering use of the systems, allocating expenses to users of the systems, and billing, invoicing (e.g., generating an invoice), or otherwise receiving payment for use of the systems [¶ 0082]). Saad and the instant application are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data management. Therefore, based on Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in view of Saad, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Saad to the system of Ivov in view of Noon in view of Malecki in order to effectively receive payment for provided services with a client. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P MOLES whose telephone number is (703)756-1043. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jung Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. 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.
/JAMES P MOLES/Examiner, Art Unit 2494
/JUNG W KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2494