DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1.The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. According to applicant's arguments filed on 02/17/2026, claims 1,3,11,13 and 20 has been amended hereby acknowledged.
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1,11 and 20have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
5. Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach the newly amended claim limitation:
“after assigning the sensitivity label, changing the content included in the digital file from first content to second content; and updating the sensitivity label for the digital file based on the second content.”
6. Examiner would like to point out that the new secondary reference Aratsu (US Pub. No. 2012/0072969) in abstract teaches the above claimed limitation (see, the rejection below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7.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.
8.Claim(s) 1-2,4-5,7,9-12,14-15,17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US Pub.No.2018/0197105) in view of Albero (US Pub.No.2023/0145722) and further in view of Aratsu (US Pub.No.2012/0072969).
9. Regarding claims 1,11 and 20 Luo teaches a method, a system and an article of manufacture comprising a non- transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions thereon that are executable by a processor of a computer system to perform operations comprising: identifying, by a computer system including at least one processor, a digital file to which a sensitivity label is to be assigned; identifying, by the computer system, context information associated with the digital file; and assigning, by the computer system, a sensitivity label to the digital file based on content included in the digital file and the context information associated with the digital file (Fig.1 and Para:0023-0025 teaches security classification/ security label of electronic/digital data items such as various digital computer based files or electronic documents . Para:0004-0011, Para:0020-0022 and Para:0078,
Fig.4 and Para:0087-0089 teaches assigning security label to digital file based on the content, metadata /contextual information associated with the digital data).
Luo teaches all the above claimed limitations but fails to teach after assigning the sensitivity label, determining, by the computer system, that a creator who created the digital file has edited the digital file; and in response, updating, by the computer system, the sensitivity label for the digital file based on the edit.
Albero teaches all the above claimed limitations but fails to teach after assigning the sensitivity label, determining, by the computer system, that a creator who created the digital file has edited the digital file; and in response, updating, by the computer system, the sensitivity label for the digital file based on the edit (Para:0007 and Para:0016-0018 teaches changing/updating the tag of the original document. Para:0058 teaches context information associated with the document is updated. Abstract and Para:0040-0044 teaches the recursive data management platform 102 will identify that the user is authorized to make changes within a document).
Therefore, to would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was filed to modify Luo to include after assigning the sensitivity label, determining, by the computer system, that a creator who created the digital file has edited the digital file; and in response, updating, by the computer system, the sensitivity label for the digital file based on the edit, as taught by Albero, such a setup will result in performing the document change request, based on authenticating the authority of the user of the user device (abstract).
Both Luo in view of by Albero teaches all the above claimed limitations but fails to teach after assigning the sensitivity label, changing the content included in the digital file from first content to second content; and updating the sensitivity label for the digital file based on the second content.
Aratsu teaches after assigning the sensitivity label, changing the content included in the digital file from first content to second content; and updating the sensitivity label for the digital file based on the second content (Abstract teaches dynamically determining a sensitivity label for the document based on content included in information within the document. Information within a document varies from day to day, for example, document information may decrease in importance with time, increase in importance due to an event, etc. Therefore, the sensitivity label of the document, may also change/update dynamically in accordance with document content, information, etc.).
Therefore, to would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was filed to modify Luo in view of by Albero to include after assigning the sensitivity label, changing the content included in the digital file from first content to second content; and updating the sensitivity label for the digital file based on the second content, as taught by Aratsu, such a setup would provide proper labeling that ensures only authorized user can access or share the document/file.
10. Regarding claims 2 and 12 Luo teaches the method and the system, wherein identifying the context information associated with the digital file includes retrieving, by the computer system, portions of the context information from one or more endpoints over a network (Fig.1, Para:0004-0006 teaches retrieving the context information associated with the digital file).
11. Regarding claims 4 and 14 Luo teaches the method and the system, wherein determining the sensitivity label is performed by a machine learning model trained to predict a sensitivity label for a digital file based on the content included in the digital file and the context information associated with the digital file (Para:0004-0011 and Para:0058-0062 teaches a machine learning model is trained to assign sensitive label for a digital file).
12. Regarding claims 5, 15 Albero teaches after assigning the sensitivity label, determining, by the computer system, that the context information associated with digital file has changed; and in response, updating, by the computer system, the sensitivity label for the digital file based on the changed context information associated with the digital file (Para:0058 teaches context information associated with the document is updated. Para:0007 and Para:0016-0018 teaches changing/updating the tag of the original document)
13. Regarding claims 7, 17 Luo teaches Albero teaches the method, further comprising: receiving, by the computer system, a request to access the digital file from a user associated with a user context; and in response, determining, by the computer system, that the user is authorized to access the digital file based on the assigned sensitivity label and the user context (Para:0042-0043 and Para:0058 teaches checking user is the user is authorized to access the document).
14. Regarding claims 9 and 19 Luo teaches the method and the system, wherein the digital file is one of an audio file, or a video file (Para:0025 teaches the digital file can be video file).
15. Regarding claim 10 Luo teaches the method, wherein the digital file is one of a word processor file, a slideshow file, or a spreadsheet file (Para:0025, Para:0058-0059 teaches the digital file is a word processor file).
16.Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US Pub.No.2018/0197105) in view of Albero (US Pub.No.2023/0145722) and in view of Aratsu (US Pub.No.2012/0072969) as applied to claims 1,11 above and further in view of Lindemann (US Pub.No.2016/0292445).
17. Regarding claims 3 and 13 Luo in view of Albero and in view of Aratsu teaches the method and the system, wherein the context information includes the creator, a creation date for the digital file (Para:0060 teaches context information includes creator of the digital file, creation date), but fails to teach the context information further includes a list of users that worked on the digital file, and a list of users that the digital file was shared with.
Lindemann teaches the context information further includes a list of users that worked on the digital file, and a list of users that the digital file was shared with (Para:0003, Para:0006, Para:0030 and Para:0084).
Therefore, to would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was filed to modify Luo in view of Albero and in view of Aratsu to include the context information further includes a list of users that worked on the digital file, and a list of users that the digital file was shared with as taught by Lindemann, such a setup will determine the user access for the digital document according to the associated digital document classification (abstract).
18.Claim(s) 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US Pub.No.2018/0197105) in view of Albero (US Pub.No.2023/0145722) and in view of Aratsu (US Pub.No.2012/0072969) as applied to claims 1,11 above and further in view of Waisbard (US Pub.No.2009/0133116).
19. Regarding claims 6, 16 Luo in view of Albero and in view of Aratsu teaches the method and the system further comprising: updating, by the computer system, the sensitivity label for the digital file based on updated context information (Albero: Para:0007, Para:0016-0018 and Para:0058), but fails to teach the context information includes a product associated with the digital file, and a product release date, and after assigning the sensitivity label, determining, by the computer system, that the product release date has passed; and in response, updating, by the computer system, the sensitivity label for the digital file based on updated context information indicating that the product release date associated with the digital file has passed.
Waisbard teaches the context information includes a product associated with the digital file, and a product release date, and after assigning the sensitivity label, determining, by the computer system, that the product release date has passed; and in response, updating, by the computer system, the sensitivity label for the digital file based on updated context information indicating that the product release date associated with the digital file has passed (Para:0075 teaches determining the product release date has passed).
Therefore, to would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was filed to modify Luo in view of Albero and in view of Aratsu to include the context information includes a product associated with the digital file, and a product release date as taught by Waisbard, such a setup will result in a rights validator for controlling access to content (abstract).
20.Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US Pub.No.2018/0197105) in view of Albero (US Pub.No.2023/0145722) and in view of Aratsu (US Pub.No.2012/0072969) as applied to claims 7,17 above and further in view of Metzler (US Pub.No.2023/0259640).
21. Regarding claims 8,18 Luo in view of Albero and in view of Aratsu teaches all the above claimed limitation but fails to teach the method and the system wherein the user context includes a user location in which the user is requesting the access the digital file.
Metzler teaches the method and the system wherein the user context includes a user location in which the user is requesting the access the digital file (Para:00568 teaches user network location in which user is requesting to access the file).
Therefore, to would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was filed to modify Luo in view of Albero and in view of Aratsu to include the user context includes a user location in which the user is requesting the access the digital file, as taught by Metzler, since such a setup will result in identifying whether the user is an authorized user to access the document.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREENA T CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)270-0506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri : 7:30 AM-5 PM EST.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/DEREENA T CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431