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 .
The amendment filed on 08/22/2025 has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1 and 14 in the amendment. Claims 2-13 and 15-20 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 filed on 08/22/2025 have been considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Further, applicant argued Volino and Crane do not teach the necessary function of mandatory deletion of the remaining digital data stream to improve data security.
In response to applicant’s argument, Volino discloses deleting the remaining digital data stream (Col. 16, line 64 – Col. 17, line 4: all the variable data contained in the remaining regions has been removed).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “mandatory deletion of the remaining digital data stream to improve data security”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argued the proposed combination is not supported by a clear rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Crane and Volino in the manner suggested by the Examiner.
In response to applicant’s argument, Crane does not disclose “deleting the remaining digital data stream”. However, Volino discloses deleting the remaining digital data stream (Col. 16, line 64 – Col. 17, line 4: all the variable data contained in the remaining regions has been removed). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Volino to Crane and Kovar because both Crane and Volino disclose extracting data in network environment (Crane: Col. 12, lines 46-50; & Volino: abstract), and Volino further discloses removing data in the remaining regions (Col. 16, line 64 – Col. 17, line 4) and OCRs the image to create data file (Col. 17, lines 66-67). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Volino in Crane and Kovar system in order to save resource by removing unnecessary data and improve efficiency.
Applicant argued combining them would not yield the Applicant’s claimed invention and would require impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first digital processor in at least one control device configured to receiving”, “a second digital processor in at least one device configured to recognizing and extracting”, “a third digital processor in at least one device configured to converting”, “a fourth digital processor in at least one device configured to displaying”, “a fifth digital processor in at least one device configured to capturing”, and “a sixth digital processor in at least one device configured to converting” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 14 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 the limitation "the remaining digital data stream" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the open network side" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the closed network side" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the source network" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the remaining digital data stream" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the open network side" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the closed network side" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane et al. (US 9,967,234 B1), in view of Crane, in view of Kovar (US 6,587,887 B1), and further in view of Volino (US 6,400,845 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Crane discloses
A method for one way data communication of information from an open network to a closed network across an air gap barrier (Col. 7, lines 47-56: ensuring secure transmission of one-way video with associated metadata from an unsecure source, to the unsecure-side of the device, then to the secure-side of the device and/or a secure destination without using a physical connection between the two sides of the device), the method comprising the steps of:
providing from a digital data stream (video data/lower security-level data signals) from a source network (unsecure network (or data source) 101, FIG. 2/low security-level data signals) to a digital filter (first digital processor) located in the open network (Col. 7, lines 64-Col. 8, line 2: sending TCP/IP protocol MISP 6.4 (or newer version) formatted video data and passing this video data to a secure network (or device) as TCP/IP protocol MISP 6.4 (or newer version) formatted video data; & Claim 21: an input interface, wherein the input interface receives low security-level data signals from a lower security-level data source; a first digital processor electrically connected to the input interface, wherein the first digital processor converts the lower security-level data signals into clean electrical image signals);
recognizing and extracting digital content embedded in the digital data stream (Col. 12, lines 46-50: in the input processor, the associated metadata portion of the video are separated from the video portion; & Claim 17: reconfiguring the lower security-level video data to eliminate security threats);
converting the extracted digital content into pictorial character images (Claim 4: a video display, wherein the video display receives the processed data stream and converts the processed data stream into video images);
displaying the pictorial character images on the open network side (unsecure-side) of the air gap barrier (Claim 4: the video images are displayed by the video display; & Col. 5, lines 19-26: the display would be used to show full motion video on the unsecure-side, and the camera would be used to receive and/or record the video on the secure-side;; since the image is display-only and the camera receives and/or records whatever is being shown/displayed at a set distance away from the display an operational Data Flow Guard (or a physical air gap) is (or can be realized); & Col. 5, lines 50-57: ‘copying’ the input or source data shown on a display via a “camera” that is located on the other side of an air gap; & Col. 13, lines 5-9: the camera views the display across the air gap (i.e., Data Flow Guard); the camera records both the optical label and video shown on the display and captures all this information as video data);
capturing the pictorial character images on the closed network side (secure-side) of the air gap barrier (Col. 5, lines 19-26: the display would be used to show full motion video on the unsecure-side, and the camera would be used to receive and/or record the video on the secure-side;; since the image is display-only and the camera receives and/or records whatever is being shown/displayed at a set distance away from the display an operational Data Flow Guard (or a physical air gap) is (or can be realized); & Col. 5, lines 50-57: ‘copying’ the input or source data shown on a display via a “camera” that is located on the other side of an air gap; & Col. 13, lines 5-9: the camera views the display across the air gap (i.e., Data Flow Guard); the camera records both the optical label and video shown on the display and captures all this information as video data);
converting the captured pictorial character images into a digital clean content file (Claim 4: converts the video image electrical signals to a secure output data stream).
Crane does not explicitly disclose
extracting digital content encoded as binary alphanumeric and other characters.
However, Kovar discloses
extracting digital content encoded as binary alphanumeric and other characters (Col. 9, lines 39-41: the server computer parses the binary characters comprising the data packets to be sent).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Kovar to Crane because Crane discloses extracting video data (Col. 13, lines 36-37) and Kovar further suggests parsing binary characters in data packets (Col. 9, lines 39-41).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Kovar in Crane system in order to only process the necessary data.
Crane and Kovar do not explicitly disclose
deleting the remaining digital data stream;
converting to a digital clean content file utilizing algorithms configured to recognizing optical characters.
However, Volino discloses
deleting the remaining digital data stream (Col. 16, line 64 – Col. 17, line 4: all the variable data contained in the remaining regions has been removed);
converting to a digital clean content file utilizing algorithms configured to recognizing optical characters (Col. 17, lines 66-67: OCRs the image using the retrieved templates to create an ASCII data file for each zone).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Volino to Crane and Kovar because Crane and Kovar disclose extracting data in network environment (Crane: Col. 12, lines 46-50) and Volino further suggests removing all the variable data (Col. 16, line 64 – Col. 17, line 4) and OCRs the image to create data file (Col. 17, lines 66-67).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Volino in Crane and Kovar system in order to save resource by removing unnecessary data and improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karve et al. (US 2021/0357206 A1). Sanitizing removes illegal characters from the data ([0048]).
Scales (US 2009/0138972 A1). Reconstruct file in a template and remove malicious code from the template to provide a clean version of the file ([0018]).
Yamazoe et al. (US 2013/0108160 A1). As for an image with a too low resolution or a too high resolution, the scale is adjusted to a size suitable for character recognition ([0070]).
Miura (US 2014/0114925 A1). The reading data is stored to be associated with the image data in the dictionary file used in the character conversion process using the reading data of the pictorial symbol used in the character conversion process contained in the image file containing image data indicating the pictorial symbol ([0014]).
Hendricks et al. (US 2011/0153464 A1). The extracted text data is converted into a digital bit stream ([0065]).
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 KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
09/22/2025
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447