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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to this application filed on December 15, 2023. Claims 1-30 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/15/23 are acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp
Claims 1-30 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of co-pending Application 18541043. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations of each. The mentioned patents contain overlapping and equivalent limitations which are obvious variations over the instant application.
As a representative example, the system claim 1 of the instant application is taught by system claim 1 of Application `043 which teaches identifying individuals on a content platform; monitoring activity of the one or more individuals on the content platform to determine if information is being transferred by the one or more individuals; and determining if the information being transferred is confidential/sensitive.
The limitations of the dependent claims of the instant application are similarly found to have their equivalents in the dependent claims of the above-mentioned Application, and are deemed to be obvious variations over them.
Without a terminal disclaimer, the co-pending claims will preclude issuance of the instant application.
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 11-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention does not fall within a statutory category. The claims recite “computer readable medium…” It is unclear from the specification what the scope of the term “computer readable medium” encompasses, as the specification leaves it open-ended and fails to define its parameters. It is entirely possible that the claim may encompass non-statutory subject matter such as, among others, transitory media types like signals and RF/carrier waves etc, which do not fall within any of the statutory categories and is therefore held as non-patentable subject matter. See MPEP Chapter 2106 Section IV.B.¶4 and Chapter 2106.01. It is recommended that Applicant change the “computer readable medium” limitation to recite “non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Claims 1-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of an “abstract idea”, as outlined in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The invention in general (and Claim 1 as a representative example) relates to information monitoring (see the instant specification: at least Abstract, Background and Summary). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 1, as the representative example, comprises steps of monitoring activities of an identified individual, and culminate in a determination if information transferred by the individual is “sensitive”. All of these limitations are based on observations and data analysis. Accordingly, the claims are deemed to be abstract because they do not go beyond monitoring and making a determination of what is monitored.
The claim begins with the limitation “identifying…”. The limitation fails to give details as to how the identifying is made, and only mentions that it is done of an individual on a platform. In this case, “identifying” is a type of watching which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation and judgement. The limitation is abstract since it encompasses a mental process;
The next limitation is “monitoring…”. At its face-value and based on broadest reasonable interpretation according to the specification, this is mere data watching. Despite the recitation of information transferred, the monitoring can be practically performed by human activity such as a person/analyst receiving something like printed information, and which can be studied. This also can be performed in the human mind since a person/analyst can simply observe the information (ie. receive it into their mind). This limitation is abstract since it encompasses organizing human activity and encompasses a mental process;
The final limitation is “determining if the information is… sensitive”. This is a type of basic data analysis since a conclusion is drawn based on analyzing the information. In this case, the analysis can be performed by a person/analyst who studies the received information, and makes a conclusion based on their intellectual capabilities. This type of observation and determining is abstract since it encompasses a mental process.
It has been shown that the claim recites an abstract idea which is a judicial exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and thus is not patent eligible. The recitation of the claim element of “computing device” and “content platform”, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. “Official Notice” is taken that the device and platform are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere generic components that apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05 (a) through (h).
Further additional elements such as the “information is being transferred” does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. This element is ancillary and inconsequential to a practical application because it is simply information watching. The additional elements are extra-solution activity and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Essentially, the claims are neither a technical improvement of a computer or network itself, nor are they a transformative technological process of a computer, network, or other element, and are thus seen to fall within the “Mental Process” and/or “Organizing Human Activity” categories of abstract ideas.
Claims 11,21 are slight variations of claim 1 and thus rejected based upon the same rationale given above for claim 1.
Dependent claims depend on a rejected base claim and are thus rejected based upon the same rationale. Furthermore, the dependent claims fail to include additional elements beyond the base claims that would be deemed sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 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.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galil et al (US Publication 20150242639) in view of Kalyan et al (US Publication 20090228565).
In reference to claim 1, Galil teaches a computer-implemented method executed on a computing device comprising:
identifying one or more individuals on a content platform; (see at least ¶ 17, which teaches monitoring and identifying data sources on a content transmission platform)
monitoring the activity of the one or more individuals on the content platform to determine if information is being transferred by the one or more individuals; (see at least ¶s 19,20, which teaches monitoring the activity of the data source and determining data is being streamed) and
if information is being transferred by the one or more individuals, determining if the information being transferred is governmentally-sensitive information (see at least ¶ 27, which teaches if data transmission is detected, then determining that the information includes sensitive information, and at least ¶ 9 which teaches detecting the transmission of government confidential information).
Galil teaches data source as shown above, but fails to explicitly teach individuals (on a content platform). However, Kalyan teaches identifying users on an email/content platform (see Kalyan, at least Abstract), and discloses identifying user/sender attributes and monitoring the activity of the user (see Kalyan, at least ¶s 86,112 and claim 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Galil based on the teachings of Kalyan for the purpose of including more context that will facilitate detecting information leakage by users.
In reference to claim 2, Galil teaches monitoring the transmission of government information (see Galil, at least ¶ 9). Furthermore, Kalyan teaches employee attributes of an organization/department (see Kalyan, at least ¶ 21 lines 1-10 and ¶ 22). Accordingly, it is obvious that the employee can transmit government information from a government organization/department. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Galil based on the teachings of Kalyan in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
In reference to claim 3, this is taught by Galil, see at least ¶s 12,18, which teaches Internet and streaming platforms.
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by Galil, see at least ¶s 9,23, which teaches text based information.
In reference to claim 5, Galil teaches identifying metadata of the confidential government information (see Galil, at least ¶s 19,27). Furthermore, Kalyan teaches vectorizing information (see Kalyan, at least ¶s 119-126). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Galil based on the teachings of Kalyan in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
In reference to claim 6, Galil teaches comparing the transmitted information to known sensitive information and detecting a match (see Galil, at least ¶s 23,27). Furthermore, Kalyan teaches checking and comparing the vectors (see Kalyan, at least ¶s 126-129). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Galil based on the teachings of Kalyan in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
In reference to claim 7, this is taught by Galil, see at least ¶ 28, which teaches preventing the transfer of the confidential/sensitive information.
In reference to claim 8, this is taught by Galil, see at least ¶ 28, which teaches alerting a third-party user of the transfer of the confidential/sensitive information.
In reference to claim 9, this is taught by Galil, see at least ¶ 28, which teaches determining a user to receive an alert of the confidential/sensitive information.
In reference to claim 10, this is taught by Galil, see at least ¶s 9,13, which teaches the information includes confidential government information.
Claims 11-30 are slight variations of the rejected claims 1-10 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
November 4, 2025