DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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 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 1-20 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/25 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19 have been amended
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application
Claims 1-20 are rejected in the instant application
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive. Please see examiners response below.
Applicants Arguments:
A) Applicant arguments summarized argue that the claims have been amended to clarify the subject matter.
Examiners Response:
A) Examiner respectfully disagrees and invites the applicant to conduct a formal interview. The amendments as instantly presented highlight a bit more of what is being done to the program, however not the algorithm nor the improvements to the machines. A human can perform the current actions and categorize the codebase. Examiner maintains his rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving monitoring stream, estimating volumes and deriving a bite rate from the estimations.
The limitations of parsing one or more computer program code portions to identify one or more sensitive data portions, wherein the one or more sensitive data portions are portions of data that are (i) associated with one or more respective sensitive data categories, and (ii) used in one or more programming functions that perform one or more operations with respect to data related to the one or more respective sensitive data categories; and transforming the one or more computer program code portions into one or more respective secured data types, wherein the one or more respective secured data types are configured to make the one or more sensitive data portions inaccessible to the one or more programming functions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of terms such computer implemented, program code, processor, memory. That is, other than reciting basic computing components nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a usage of organizing human activity. The concept of reviewing code/data and transforming/censoring parts of it is well known and understood. A user can parse through data and censor data they deem to be a secured type. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation carried out of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic unit components, then it falls within the “organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites four additional steps. The components in each step are recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer
Claims 2, 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) casting the one or more computer program code portions associated with the one or more sensitive data portions into an intermediary alias data type, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of terms such a casting. That is, other than reciting basic casting data types nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a usage of organizing human activity. The concept of having casting data is well known and understood. A user can cast different types of data for particular purposes (ie security, ambiguity, modification). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation carried out of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic unit components, then it falls within the “organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The components in each step are recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer
Claims 3, 11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) ranking, based on a predicted data sensitivity score, each of the one or more computer program code portions that were cast into the intermediary alias data type; and determining, based the respective predicted data sensitivity scores, whether the one or more computer program code portions that were cast into the intermediary alias data type satisfy a predicted data sensitivity score threshold; and in response to determining that the one or more computer program code portions satisfy the predicted data sensitivity score threshold: transforming, the one or more computer program code portions into the one or more respective secured data types as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of terms such a secured data types. That is, other than reciting basic data types nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a usage of organizing human activity. The concept of ranking data and utilizing thresholds to identify severity is well known and understood. A user can group data and rank the groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation carried out of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic unit components, then it falls within the “organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The components in each step are recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer
Claims 4, 12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) wherein the one or more sensitive data portions are used in one or more computer program functions that perform at least one of outputting data related to the one or more sensitive data portions, logging data related to the one or more sensitive data portions, mutating data related to the one or more sensitive data portions, or compiling metrics associated with the one or more sensitive data portions as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of terms such as computer program functions. That is, other than reciting basic computer functionality nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a usage of organizing human activity. The concept of identifying and modifying data in various fields is well known and understood. A user can choose to classify different data types. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation carried out of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic unit components, then it falls within the “organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The components in each step are recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer
Claims 5, 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) wherein the one or more respective sensitive data categories comprise at least one of user generated content (UGC), personally identifiable information (PI), application usage related data, security related data, enterprise related data, or commerce related data. as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity. That is, other than reciting basic computer functionality nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a usage of organizing human activity. The concept of categorizing data is well known and understood. A user can categorize different types of data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation carried out of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic unit components, then it falls within the “organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The components in each step are recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer
Claims 6, 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) , wherein the one or more respective secured data types are associated with at least one of one or more respective primitive data types or array types as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity. That is, other than reciting basic computer functionality nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a usage of organizing human activity. The concept of having different association between data types is well known and understood. A user can use a particular data type and enhance it to create a modified data type. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation carried out of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic unit components, then it falls within the “organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The components in each step are recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer
Claims 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) executing one or more redaction functions, wherein executing the one or more redaction functions causes the one or more sensitive data portions associated with the one or more respective secured data types to become accessible by the one or more computer applications as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of terms such as redaction function. That is, other than reciting basic computer functionality nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a usage of organizing human activity. The concept of un-censoring data is well known and understood. A user can encrypt data and provide a mechanism to unencrypt the data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation carried out of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic unit components, then it falls within the “organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The components in each step are recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer
Claims 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) wherein the one or more secured data types are configured to make the one or more respective sensitive data portions inaccessible to one or more programming functions associated with one or more programming libraries as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of terms such as programming libraries. That is, other than reciting basic computer functionality nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a usage of organizing human activity. The concept of encrypting data to secure it is well known and understood. A user can encrypt data so that it is inaccessible to others or programming libraries. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation carried out of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic unit components, then it falls within the “organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The components in each step are recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of dependency and because they do not obviate the above-recited deficiencies.
Conclusion
References are cited not only for their quoted language but for all that they teach.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atta Khan whose telephone number is 571-270-7364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 09:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272-7304. 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.
/ATTA KHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449