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 action is in response to the communication filed on June 13, 2025 in response to the first office action on merit.
Remarks
Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1-20. Applicant has
Amended claims 1, 9, and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance:
In response to argument (Page 8, Para: 2-3) - Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that the primary art, Guirguis failed to disclose “…symbology encoding based on a subject identifier extracted from the input data message, let alone symbology encoding being specific to the subject identified by the subject identifier…” in regard to independent claims 1, 9 and 17. Guirguis discloses GT-ANeNDS as an obfuscation technique can be applied any data type i.e., a “precision parameter” and where an identifiable data i.e., a “subject identifier” identifies the national ID number i.e., the “input data message” used in obfuscation (Guirguis, Col 5: lines 24-29, and Col 5: 45-49).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guirguis et al. (U.S. Patent No.: US 9,298,878 B2/ or “Guirguis” hereinafter) in view of Shuichi Kurabayashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2016/0014094 A1 / or “Kurabayashi” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Guirguis discloses “A system comprising” (Abstract: system and method of data privacy through obfuscation functions is disclosed):
“a processor programmed to: access an input data value obtained from an input data message, the input data value to be obfuscated” (Col 5:lines 1-14: data obfuscation is performed on data on new transaction data );
“obtain a symbology encoding [i.e., a symbology encoding is information that is used to obfuscate an actual data value into an observable data value that is different than the actual data value (see, applicant provided specification, Para 5)] based on a subject identifier extracted from the input data message” (Col 5: lines 15-17,a GT-ANeNDS i.e., a “symbology encoding” is used in obfuscating real time-time data; and Col 5: 45-49, where the identifiable data i.e., a “subject identifier” identifies the national ID number i.e., the “input data message”),
“the symbology encoding being specific to the subject identified by the subject identifier
and obfuscating the input data value based on a precision parameter [i.e., the precision parameter is data that defines how an actual data value is to be obfuscated into an observable data value (see, applicant provided specification, Para 14)] of the symbology encoding that defines how an actual data value is to be obfuscated into an observable data value for the
subject identified by the subject identifier from the input data message” (Col 5: lines 24-29, the GT-ANeNDS can be applied any data type i.e., a “precision parameter”; and Col 5: 45-49, where the identifiable data i.e., a “subject identifier” identifies the national ID number i.e., the “input data message” used in obfuscation);
“generate an output data value based on the input data value and the symbology encoding, the output data value obfuscating the input data value based on the precision parameter defined for the identified subject in the symbology encoding” (Col 5: lines 50-57, obfuscated value is generated );
Guirguis further discloses that once the data is obfuscated it is provided to a capture process which writes it to the train and shipped to a replication site (Guirguis, Col 5:lines 9-11).
But Guirguis fails to specially disclose preparing an output message and transmitting the message to different recipients.
However, Kurabayashi discloses “prepare an output data message based on the output data value that obfuscates the input data value” (Kurabayashi, Fig. 4; and Para 0057-0059: dummy data is added to a message and along with an obfuscate message);
“and transmit the output data value obfuscating the input data value to one or more recipients to obfuscate the input data value while providing an indication of the input data value within the precision parameter” (Kurabayashi, Para 0060, the obfuscated message is provided to an end user).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of preparing an output message and transmitting the message to different recipients of Kurabayashi to the System and Method for Real-Time Transactional Data Obfuscation of Guirguis to create a system where the message can be rendered by the intended recipient and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine “…Thus, it is possible to prevent only applications of data mining to the original message data without decreasing the reliability and readability of the original message data” (Kurabayashi, Para 0061).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Guirguis discloses “wherein the input data value comprises a quantity value that is obfuscated based on the symbology encoding” (Col 6: lines 1-3, number of neighbors i.e., a “quantity value”).
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 1, Guirguis discloses “wherein the input data value comprises a price value that is obfuscated based on the symbology encoding” (Col 6: lines 36-55, numerical data value).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1, Guirguis discloses “wherein the symbology encoding comprises a precision parameter that specifies an increment, and wherein the processor is further programmed to: generate the output data value based on a single increment applied for a plurality of intervals of ranges and the input data value is placed in one of the plurality of intervals of ranges to obfuscate the input data value” (Col 5: lines 59-66, ranges are disclosed).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 1, Guirguis discloses “wherein the symbology encoding comprises a precision parameter that specifies a plurality of increments, and wherein the processor is further programmed to: generate the output data value based on a plurality of increments comprising a first increment that is different than a second increment, and wherein the input data value is placed in one of a plurality of intervals ranges to obfuscate the input data value” (Col 6: lines 11-24, ranges within the same bucket).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1, Guirguis discloses “wherein the symbology encoding comprises a precision parameter that specifies a terminal increment, and wherein the processor is further programmed to: generate the output data value based on the terminal increment, and wherein the input data value is placed in one of a plurality of intervals corresponding to the terminal increment to obfuscate the input data value” (Col 6: lines 11-24, ranges within the same bucket).
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 1, Guirguis discloses “wherein the processor is further programmed to: validate a data value based on the symbology encoding” (Col 8: lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 8, in view of claim 1, Guirguis discloses “wherein the processor is further programmed to: aggregate the input data value with other input data values prior to the obfuscation” (Col 5: lines 18-57, input with new data and meta-data).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is directed to a method corresponding to the system recited in claim 1. Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to a method corresponding to the system recited in claim 2. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a method corresponding to the system recited in claim 3. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to a method corresponding to the system recited in claim 4. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore, rejected under similar 4rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a method corresponding to the system recited in claim 5. Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a method corresponding to the system recited in claim 6. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a method corresponding to the system recited in claim 7. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a method corresponding to the system recited in claim 8. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the system recited in claim 1. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the system recited in claim 2. Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the system recited in claim 3. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the system recited in claim 4. Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peter Neergaard (US 2010/0306854 Al) discloses:
[Abstract] … generating an obfuscated value to replace an original value in a given field of the record using the key value such that the obfuscated value depends on the key value and is deterministically related to the original value; and storing the collection of obfuscated data including records that include obfuscated values in a data storage system.
Biswaroop Mukherjee (US 20220092468 A1) discloses “…identifying information for the endpoint and non-identifying information; an obfuscator module for obfuscating the identifying information in the data to generate obfuscated data including the non-identifying information and obfuscated identifying information; one or more machine learning modules for receiving the obfuscated data and transmitting an actionable inference message based upon the non-identifying information in the obfuscated data; and a resolver module for resolving the obfuscated identifying information in the actionable inference message and transmitting the resolved actionable inference message to the endpoint associated with the identifying information” (Para 0012).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/SARAH SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431