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 the communications and remarks filed on 1/23/2026. Claims 1-13 are presently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 1/23/2026, regarding the U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of Claims 1-13 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that "The current Office Action explains the rejection is based on the Examiner's determination that Mastrangelo teaches at least a watermark 114 possibly including the 'URL 120 of the web page itself' and therefore the 'name of the host' as recited in the previous version of Claim 1. The amendments herein remove that option from the recited signature. For at least these reasons, Independent Claim 1 is not anticipated by Mastrangelo."
Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Mastrangelo teaches wherein the signature includes at least one datum selected from the group consisting of: a file creation time, a file modification time, a file creator, a file processor, a file storage location, and an IP address of the host. [paragraph 0019, the server that provides web page 100 may apply watermark 114 to web page 100. Watermark 114 may contain various elements. For example, watermark 114 may contain an experience ID 116, an IP address 118 from which web page 100 was accessed, the URL 120 of the web page itself, and the login name 122 of the user who is accessing the web page (if such login name is available) – the user who is accessing the web page is interpreted as “the file processor”] It is unclear if "the file processor" means something other than a user accessing or "processing" the file therefore, this is the interpretation of the examiner. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mastrangelo et al., (US 20110314550 A1) hereinafter referred to as Mast.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 13, Mast discloses An information leakage detection method , the method comprising: acquiring a data packet sent from a protected system to the outside; [paragraph 0030, At 402, an image of a page may be received. For example, a company might become aware that a screen shot of a private page has been posted on a public blog]
identifying signatures from the data packet , wherein a signature uniquely corresponds to a host in the protected system and is stored in at least one file in the corresponding host; [paragraph 0019, the server that provides web page 100 may apply watermark 114 to web page 100. Watermark 114 may contain various elements. For example, watermark 114 may contain an experience ID 116, an IP address 118 from which web page 100 was accessed, the URL 120 of the web page itself, and the login name 122 of the user who is accessing the web page (if such login name is available)]
and when a signature is identified, deciding information in the host corresponding to the identified signature is leaked; [paragraph 0003, The source of leaks may be identified by watermarking proprietary material in a way that is likely to lead to the person involved in the leak. A company's (or other organization's) private information may be stored in the form of digital information, and may be accessed through some type of software such as a browser]
wherein the signature includes at least one datum selected from the group consisting of: a file creation time, a file modification time, a file creator, a file processor, a file storage location, and an IP address of the host. [paragraph 0019, the server that provides web page 100 may apply watermark 114 to web page 100. Watermark 114 may contain various elements. For example, watermark 114 may contain an experience ID 116, an IP address 118 from which web page 100 was accessed, the URL 120 of the web page itself, and the login name 122 of the user who is accessing the web page (if such login name is available) – the user who is accessing the web page is interpreted as “the file processor”]
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Mast discloses wherein identifying a signature from the data packet comprises: using each pre-stored coded signature to match the data packet to identify a signature; and/or using each pre-stored compressed signature to match the data packet to identify a signature. [paragraph 0003, The source of leaks may be identified by watermarking proprietary material in a way that is likely to lead to the person involved in the leak. A company's (or other organization's) private information may be stored in the form of digital information, and may be accessed through some type of software such as a browser]
Regarding Claim 3, Mast discloses wherein the at least one file start and end with the signature corresponding to the host where they are located. [paragraph 0019, the server that provides web page 100 may apply watermark 114 to web page 100. Watermark 114 may contain various elements. For example, watermark 114 may contain an experience ID 116, an IP address 118 from which web page 100 was accessed, the URL 120 of the web page itself, and the login name 122 of the user who is accessing the web page (if such login name is available)]
Regarding Claim 4, Mast discloses wherein the at least one file include at least one of the following information items: file description information; and information of the host where the file is located. [paragraph 0019, the server that provides web page 100 may apply watermark 114 to web page 100. Watermark 114 may contain various elements. For example, watermark 114 may contain an experience ID 116, an IP address 118 from which web page 100 was accessed, the URL 120 of the web page itself, and the login name 122 of the user who is accessing the web page (if such login name is available)]
Regarding Claim 5, Mast discloses wherein a signature is stored in a plurality of files in the corresponding host and a plurality of files are located at different positions of the host. [Figure 2, discloses storing signature watermarks at different positions of the computerized device]
Regarding Claim 6, Mast discloses wherein each of the plurality of files includes storage location information of the file in the host. [paragraph 0019, the server that provides web page 100 may apply watermark 114 to web page 100. Watermark 114 may contain various elements. For example, watermark 114 may contain an experience ID 116, an IP address 118 from which web page 100 was accessed, the URL 120 of the web page itself, and the login name 122 of the user who is accessing the web page (if such login name is available) – the ip address would the location information]
Regarding Claim 7, Mast discloses wherein a signature is generated based on an identifier of the corresponding host ; or a signature is generated based on a plurality of identifiers of the corresponding host. [paragraph 0019, the server that provides web page 100 may apply watermark 114 to web page 100. Watermark 114 may contain various elements. For example, watermark 114 may contain an experience ID 116, an IP address 118 from which web page 100 was accessed, the URL 120 of the web page itself, and the login name 122 of the user who is accessing the web page (if such login name is available)]
Regarding Claim 9, Mast discloses wherein the file name of the one or plurality of files includes the signature corresponding to the host where a file is located. [paragraph 0019, the server that provides web page 100 may apply watermark 114 to web page 100. Watermark 114 may contain various elements. For example, watermark 114 may contain an experience ID 116, an IP address 118 from which web page 100 was accessed, the URL 120 of the web page itself, and the login name 122 of the user who is accessing the web page (if such login name is available) – the ip address would the location information]
Regarding Claim 10, Mast discloses wherein the one or plurality of files comprise hidden files and/or static files. [Abstract, Watermarks may be used to deter certain types of information leaks. In one example, leaks occur in the form of posting, in public forums, screen shots of private pages – a screen shot is a static file]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mast, as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Masny et al., (US 20220353089 A1) hereinafter referred to as Masny.
Regarding Claim 8, Mast does not explicitly teach further comprising computing a signature based on a Hash algorithm; wherein the signatures corresponding to different hosts have the same length.
Masny teaches further comprising computing a signature based on a Hash algorithm; wherein the signatures corresponding to different hosts have the same length. [paragraph 0053, allowed them to produce a signature securely without leaking the signing key following the full-domain hash paradigm]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Masny with the disclosure of Mast. The motivation or suggestion would have been to “lead to efficient signatures.” (paragraph 0053)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J STEINLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm CT.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/ANDREW J STEINLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497