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 .
2. The following is a Final Office action in response to communications received on June 11, 2025. Claims 21-35 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant has amended the claims in such a way that the scope of the claims has been changed. New art is being used to address the newly added claim limitations. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections which are addressed herein below.
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 1-20 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 analysis of the document.” The claim previously recites “analyzing…a document” and “performing an analysis of the document.” Therefore, it is unclear as to which particular analyzing the limitation is referring. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons to claim 1. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected for containing the same indefinite language as the parent claims without further remedying the indefinite language.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreau et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0089449 and hereinafter referred to as Boudreau) in view of Barile et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,799,287 and hereinafter referred to as Barile) in view of Caliskan-Islam et al. (“Privacy Detective: Detecting Private Information and Collective Privacy Behavior in a Large Social Network” and hereinafter referred to as Caliskan-Islam).
As to claim 1, Boudreau discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
analyzing, by a leakage prevention system, a document for sensitive information, wherein the document is sent by a sender to at least one receiver of the document (paragraphs [0053] and [0067], Boudreau teaches analyzing a message for sensitive information where the message is attempting to be transferred from a sender to a recipient);
determining, by the leakage prevention system based on the sender, and the at least one receiver, a sender risk profile of the sender and receiver risk profiles of the at least one receiver (paragraphs [0053] and [0098], Boudreau teaches using sender and receiver profiles for the analysis);
determining, by the leakage prevention system using predefined rules, the sender risk profile, and the receiver risk profiles, risk scores for the sender and the at least one receiver, wherein the risk scores identify a use level of sensitive information in the document (paragraphs [0054]-[0055], [0070], [0084], [0090] and [0098], Boudreau teaches using rules to assign a risk rating to both the sender and recipient where the risk ratings identify different levels); and
determining, by the leakage prevention system based at least on the risk scores for the sender and the at least one receiver, whether to block a transfer of the document or to allow a transfer of the document (paragraphs [0057]-[0059], Boudreau teaches blocking the message from transmitting if the risk ratings indicate high risk.). Even though Boudreau does generally mention context (see paragraphs [0070] and [0084], for example), Boudreau is not specifically clear on disclosing determining, by the leakage prevention system based on performing an analysis of the document, at least one context of sensitive information usage in the document, wherein the analysis of the document comprises a sentiment analysis or a topic modeling identifying the sensitive information included in the document; determining, by the leakage prevention system based on the at least one context of sensitive information usage in the document as claimed (emphasis added). However, Barile does disclose
determining, by the leakage prevention system based on performing an analysis of the document, at least one context of sensitive information usage in the document; determining, by the leakage prevention system based on the at least one context of sensitive information usage in the document (col. 6 lines 44-57, Barile teaches determining a context of a document containing sensitive information.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Boudreau with the teachings of Barile for determining, by the leakage prevention system based on analyzing the document, at least one context in which sensitive information is used because this would increase security.
The combination of teachings between Boudreau and Barile does not specifically disclose wherein the analysis of the document comprises a sentiment analysis or a topic modeling identifying the sensitive information included in the document as claimed. However, Caliskan-Islam does disclose
wherein the analysis of the document comprises a sentiment analysis or a topic modeling identifying the sensitive information included in the document (sections 6.2.2, 6.2.5, 10 and Abstract, Caliskan-Islam teaches sentiment analysis and topic modeling for detecting if private information is revealed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified invention of Boudreau with the teachings of Caliskan-Islam for sentiment analysis or a topic modeling because this would increase security
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 1 and are therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above. (Note: claims 8 and 15 recite the additional limitations of a processor and non-transitory media which is disclosed by Boudreau at, for example, paragraphs [0046]-[0047]).
As to claim 2, the combination of teachings between Boudreau, Barile and Caliskan-Islam disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the document is an email message (paragraph [0073], Boudreau teaches an email document.).
Claims 9 and 16 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 2 and are therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 2 above.
As to claim 3, the combination of teachings between Boudreau, Barile and Caliskan-Islam disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the document is a social network post being generated by the sender to be posted on a social network by the sender (paragraph [0080], Boudreau teaches a social network post.).
Claims 10 and 17 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 3 and are therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 3 above.
As to claim 4, the combination of teachings between Boudreau, Barile and Caliskan-Islam disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the at least one receiver of the document comprises a social network audience of the social network post (paragraph [0080], Boudreau teaches a social network post.).
Claims 11 and 18 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 4 and are therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 4 above.
As to claim 5, the combination of teachings between Boudreau, Barile and Caliskan-Islam disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the risk scores include a low-risk score, a medium-risk score, and a high-risk score, and wherein the risk scores are determined from risky and non-risky profiles (paragraphs [0054] and [0068], Boudreau teaches low, medium, and high risk ratings.).
Claims 12 and 19 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 5 and are therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 5 above.
As to claim 6, the combination of teachings between Boudreau, Barile and Caliskan-Islam disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that one or more of the sender and at least one receiver have a risk score exceeding a high-risk score threshold; and sending a notification to one or more of the at least one receiver indicating that sensitive information has been sent (paragraphs [0058]-[0059], Boudreau teaches determining if a high risk threshold is exceeded based partly on sender and receiver risk ratings and if so, marking a message confidential. The marking of a message as confidential is considered to be a notification that the message contains sensitive information.).
Claims 13 and 20 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 6 and are therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 6 above.
As to claim 7, the combination of teachings between Boudreau, Barile and Caliskan-Islam disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the document for sensitive information comprises using natural language processing (NLP) on contents of the document to determine if the document contains sensitive information (paragraph [0093], Boudreau teaches natural language processing for determining sensitive information.).
Claim 14 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 7 and is therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 7 above.
Conclusion
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 THADDEUS J PLECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7506. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 571-272-3787. 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.
/THADDEUS J PLECHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights