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 Office Action is responsive to: Application filed 13 Feb. 2024
Claims 1-20 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 11 and 20 are independent claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US 2019/0018983 A1; Filed: Jul. 17, 2017)(hereinafter “Anderson”).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, Anderson disclose a system for identifying a source of document leaks, the system comprising:
a processor configured to (0094):
receive a document (0024-0025; 0037);
identify one or more changeable areas in the document (0028-0029);
generate, by a predictive model, one or more document variables wherein the document variable comprise at least one or more changes in the document in the changeable areas (0064; 0075;0081; 0104);
apply the document variables to the document (0064; 0075; 0081; 0104);
generate one or more new documents, wherein the new documents each contain at least one of the document variables (0066-0067; 0081); and
transmit, upon applying the document variables to the document, the new documents to one or more recipients (0049-0050; 0091).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Anderson disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further to store, upon applying the document variables to the document, the document in a data storage unit (0049).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Anderson disclose the system of claim 1, wherein each of the new documents do not share the same document variables (0063).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Anderson disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to transmit each of the new documents to the recipients, wherein each of the recipients receives only one of the new documents (0040-0041; 0049-0050; 0091).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Anderson disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to generate a map of the document, wherein the map describes form and content associated with the new document and document variables (0063; 0065; 0067).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Anderson disclose the system of claim 5, wherein the map further comprises the recipients who received the new document (0040-0041; 0049-0050; 0091).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Anderson disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more document variables comprise a new word replacing an original word in the document (0064; 0075;0081; 0104).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Anderson disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more document variables comprise a new phrase replacing an original phrase in the document (0067; 0077).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Anderson disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more document variables comprise a new numerical or alphanumeric symbol replacing an original numerical or alphanumerical symbol in the document (0025-0026; 0064; 0075; 0108; 0116).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Anderson disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more document variables comprise a new form or style of the document replacing an original form or style of the document (0054; 0070; 0077).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Anderson disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the steps further comprise generating a map of the document, wherein the map describes form and content associated with the new document (0063; 0065; 0067).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Anderson disclose the method of claim 12, wherein the steps further comprise:
receiving, by the processor, one or more changes to the document (0064; 0075; 0081; 0104);
updating, by the processor, the map of the document (0063; 0065; 0067); and
storing, by the processor, the map of the document in a data storage unit (0049).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Anderson disclose the method of claims 12, wherein the steps further comprise tracking, by the processor, one or more metadata of the new document (0065-0066; 0073; 0075; 0082; 0106).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Anderson disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the steps further comprise identifying, by the processor, one or more non-changeable areas in the document (0077; 0080).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Anderson disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the steps further comprise applying, by the processor, a document variable created manually by a user (0050).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Anderson disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the steps further comprise:
receiving, by the processor, one or more changes to the document (0064; 0075; 0081; 0104);
updating, by the processor, the predictive model with the changes (0054); and
monitoring the new document for further changes (0050).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Anderson disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the steps further comprise identifying, by the processor, which of the one or more changeable areas in the document would be, if given a change, the least likely to be noticed by a user (0064; 0075; 0081; 0104).
Regarding independent claim 20, Anderson disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium containing computer executable instructions that, when executed by a computer hardware arrangement comprising a processor, configure the computer hardware arrangement to perform procedures comprising:
receiving a document (0024-0025; 0037);
identifying one or more changeable areas in the document (0028-0029);
generating one or more document variables wherein the document variables comprise at least one or more changes in the document in the changeable areas, wherein the one or more document variables do not change significantly a meaning of the document (0064; 0072; 0075; 0081; 0104);
applying the document variables to the document (0064; 0075; 0081; 0104);
generating a new document, wherein the new document contains the document variables (0066-0067; 0081);
and
transmitting upon applying the document variables to the document, the document to one or more recipients (0049-0050; 0091).
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, 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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Ford et al. (US 2017/0041296 A1; Filed: Dec. 19, 2015)(hereinafter “Ford”).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Anderson disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the steps further comprise:
encrypting the new document (0001).
Anderson does not expressly disclose storing the encrypted new document in a data storage unit.
Ford teach storing the encrypted new document in a data storage unit (0158; 0179-0180).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ford with Anderson for the benefit of users to utilize the systems in such a way that does not force them to adopt new infrastructure, software, and business and personal processes in their daily workflow in order to achieve a shared and potentially secure extended work environment (0003).
NOTE
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J DEBROW whose telephone number is (571)272-5768. The examiner can normally be reached on 09:00 - 06:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/James J Debrow/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2174
571-272-5768