DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 12/26/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 12, 14 and 17-19 recite, “The apparatus of claim 10”; the dependency is improper because claim 10 is a method claim.
Regarding claims 13 and 15-16, dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency from the rejected claims 12 and 14-15 respectively.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 20 are allowed.
Claims 12-19 would be allowable; should Applicant overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), set forth in this office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for both allowance and identifying allowable subject matter.
The closest prior arts made of records are, Vanveerdeghem et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0,236,142 A1, referred to as Vanveerdeghem), Sloane et al. (U.S Pub No. 2024/0,061,869 A1, referred to as Sloane) and Richardson et al. (U.S Pub No. 2023/0,359,772 A1, referred to as Richardson).
Vanveerdeghem discloses methods and systems for security threat analysis. One example may involve a first computer system configuring a test packet that includes malicious content for forwarding along a network path between (a) a first network element that is connected with a first virtualized computing instance and (b) a second network element that is connected with a second virtualized computing instance. The test packet may be injected at the first network element and forwarded towards the second network element. In response to a security checkpoint detecting the test packet, the security checkpoint may apply one or more security policies on the test packet; and generate and send report information towards a management entity. The report information may indicate whether the malicious content in the test packet is detectable based on the one or more security policies.
Sloane discloses an invention to electronically receive, from a computing device of a user, a request to obfuscate one or more data artifacts stored on a first database, retrieve from a data obfuscation repository, one or more data obfuscation algorithms, implement the one or more data obfuscation algorithms on the one or more data artifacts, generate one or more placeholder indicators identifying the one or more data obfuscation algorithms implemented on the one or more data artifacts, create one or more data fields corresponding to the one or more masked data artifacts on the first database, store the one or more placeholder indicators in the one or more data fields and update the first database with the one or more masked data artifacts and the one or more placeholder indicators.
Richardson discloses methods, systems and apparatus to privatize consumer data. A disclosed example apparatus includes a consumer data acquirer to collect original data corresponding to (a) confidential information associated with consumers and (b) behavior information associated with the consumers, and a data obfuscator. The data obfuscator is to determine a degree to which the original data is to be obfuscated and a type of obfuscation to be applied to the original data based on the original data, generate obfuscation adjustments of the original data based on the degree and the type, and generate an obfuscation model based on the obfuscation adjustments.
However, regarding claim 1, the prior art of Vanveerdeghem, Sloane and Richardson when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “obtaining at least one user-configured privacy policy based on the at least one UUID; generating obfuscated user alert data at least in part by applying at least one user- configured privacy policy to the user data associated with the alert; and causing provision of the obfuscated user alert data to the administrator computing device via the API for rendering on the display.”.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the prior art of Vanveerdeghem, Sloane and Richardson when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “obtain at least one user-configured privacy policy based on the at least one UUID; generate obfuscated user alert data at least in part by applying the at least one user- configured privacy policy to the user data associated with the alert; and render an obfuscated user alert data interface on the administrator computing device, the obfuscated user alert data interface comprising the obfuscated user alert data.”.
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1, and are of consequence allowed.
Claims 12-19 depend on claim 10, and are of consequence identified as allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN SAADOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8408. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Joseph Hirl can be reached at 571-272-3685. 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.
/HASSAN SAADOUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/JOSEPH P HIRL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435