DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendment filed August 10, 2026 for the application # 18/639,459 filed on April 18, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are directed toward SECURING SENSITIVE INFORMATION DETERMINED IN AN INPUT MESSAGE.
Any claim objection/rejection not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
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 . 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claims 1-20 have been fully considered, but they are moot because of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wall (US 2010/0042690, Pub. Date: Feb. 18, 2010), in view of FRIEDLIN et al., (A Software Tool for Removing Patient Identifying Information from Clinical Documents, JAMIA, v15, n15, 2008, pages 601-610), hereinafter referred to as Wall and FRIEDLIN.
As per claim 1, Wall teaches a method, comprising: receiving, from a first client device, an input message comprising content (as shown in FIG. 2, the enhanced data messaging (EDM) code or tool 220 which runs on a computer system or device 200 comprises a logic unit that contains a plurality of modules configured to functionally execute the necessary steps of providing selective or customizable enhanced privacy and control features to one or more portions of an electronic message created by a user of the system. Wall, [0024]);
evaluating, by a communication service, the content of the input message against one or more detection criteria to determine that at least a portion of the input message The command interpreter module 224 is configured to interpret the commands inputted by the user of the system 200 and the command processing module 226 is configured to process the commands interpreted in order to provide selective enhanced privacy and control features to one or more portions of an electronic message created by the user. Wall, [0024]);
Wall does not teach the limitation satisfies a detection threshold. However, FRIEDLIN teaches that at least a portion of the input message satisfies a detection threshold (The algorithm compares the target word with the patient’s name using a combination of the longest common string and the common ordering of letters, and outputs a nearness score between 0 and 1. The higher the score, the greater the similarity between the 2 words, with a score of 1.0 being a perfect match. Based on the threshold we use currently in a related patient linker system, we consider a score of 0.70 or greater as a match and warrants scrubbing. FRIEDLIN, page 605).
Wall in view of FRIEDLIN are analogous art to the claimed invention, because they are from a similar field of endeavor of systems, components and methodologies for providing secure communication between computer systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wall in view of FRIEDLIN. This would have been desirable because misspelling of words and names can cause havoc with de-identification systems and natural language processing systems (FRIEDLIN, page 605).
Wall in view of FRIEDLIN further teaches:
outputting, by the communication service, a command to cause the input message to be displayed by a second client device according to one or more security controls (and transmitting, using a transmission medium, the electronic message created containing the one or more portions of data for distribution to respective devices of the one or more intended recipients, wherein the one or more portions of data in the electronic message received on the respective recipient device notifies a respective recipient regarding the one or more pre-defined selective enhanced privacy and control features selected by the sender of the electronic message. Wall, [0003]).
As per claim 2, Wall in view of FRIEDLIN teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising outputting, by the communication service, a second command to cause the first client device to display a sensitive data user interface including the at least the portion of the input message (a first data portion in the electronic message, for instance, a text message data portion, reference numeral 709, is configured to have a first set of configurable enhanced privacy and control features (reference numeral 710) than a second data portion in the electronic message, for instance, a file attachment data portion, reference numeral 712, which has a second set of configurable enhanced privacy and control features (reference numeral 714). Wall, [0032]).
As per claim 3, Wall in view of FRIEDLIN teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising receiving, from the first client device, a designation of the at least the portion of the input message as sensitive information (In particular, as shown in FIG. 7, the sender types in a message "Here is the e-mail I promised you today, Steve ???v,cdm, ???" (reference numerals 709 and 710, where "Here is the e-mail I promised you today, Steve" (reference numeral 709) is the text portion of the message and where "???v,cdm, ???" (reference numeral 710) represents the enhanced data messaging (EDM) features selected by the sender). Wall, [0032]).
As per claim 4, Wall in view of FRIEDLIN teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising receiving, from the first client device, a selection of the one or more security controls (the sender attaches a first file, namely an Adobe® file "sample_lease.pdf' (reference numeral 712), which is configured using the enhanced data messaging (EDM) code or tool. In particular, the sender has selected and entered the syntax command "???5d,n,pstevel, ??? (reference numeral 714) for the Adobe® file 712, where the syntax "5d" means that the sender has selected the auto delete option or feature in the enhanced data messaging (EDM) code or tool of 5 days, thus, the Adobe® file will auto delete on the recipient's device in 5 days. Wall, [0032]).
As per claim 5, Wall in view of FRIEDLIN teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from the first client device, a selection of one or more default security controls, wherein the one or more security controls are based on the one or more default security controls (The enhanced data messaging (EDM) code may further provide features, such as, archiving messages, prioritizing messages, sorting messages (both online and offline ), adding preferences, such as, default preferences, Wall, [0026]).
As per claim 6, Wall in view of FRIEDLIN teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the at least the portion of the input message includes the sensitive information comprises using a machine learning (ML) algorithm to identify the sensitive information (the enhanced data messaging (EDM) code can be deployed on devices 320 using Artificial Intelligence technology. Wall, [0025]).
As per claim 7, Wall in view of FRIEDLIN teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the at least the portion of the input message includes the sensitive information comprises using pattern recognition to identify the sensitive information (selecting, using the enhanced data messaging tool, one or more pre-defined selective enhanced privacy and control features for one or more portions of data contained in the electronic message created by a sender, wherein a respective one or more pre-defined selective enhanced privacy and control features selected for one portion differs from another respective one or more predefined selective enhanced privacy and control features selected for another portion of the one or more portions of data contained in the electronic message, Wall, [0003]).
As per claim 8, Wall in view of FRIEDLIN teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more security controls include establishing a predetermined period of time to display the sensitive information (a pre-defined time frame for the one or more portions of the electronic message to auto delete on a recipient device, wherein the pre-defined time frame includes at least one of: number of seconds, number of days, number of weeks, number of months, number of years, a specific date and time, a unique event, a recurring event and an arbitrary time frame pre-defined by the sender, one or more local time zones, one or more international time zones. Wall, [0004]).
As per claim 9, Wall in view of FRIEDLIN teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more security controls further include an indication to permanently delete the sensitive information after the predetermined period of time has elapsed (if the one or more pre-defined selective enhanced privacy and control features selected include a respective pre-defined time frame for the one or more portions of data in the electronic message to auto delete on a recipient device, the one or more portions of data in the electronic message are automatically deleted on the respective recipient device upon expiration of the respective pre-defined time frame. Wall, [0005], see also As shown in 506, the syntax "2h30s" is interpreted and processed by the command interpreter module of the enhanced data messaging (EDM) tool or code to mean that the message is to be deleted on the recipient's device in 2 hours and 30 seconds. Wall, [0030]).
As per claim 10, Wall in view of FRIEDLIN teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more security controls include an indication to display the sensitive information using a visual mask (Additionally, other features can be included in the enhanced data messaging (EDM) code, as discussed further herein below with respect to FIGS. 5, 6 and 7, such as, a hide message feature or an unhide message feature, Wall, [0026]).
As per claim 11, Wall in view of FRIEDLIN teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more security controls include an indication to encrypt the sensitive information (It is understood that the enhanced data messaging (EDM) tool or code can be configured with various forms of encryption based on a user's needs. Wall, [0030]).
Claims 12-20 have limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection, and are met by the references as discussed above, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG KORSAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1938. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:00 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached on (571) 272-3880. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OLEG KORSAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights