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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-16, drawn to text processing, editing, tables, spreadsheet, classified in G06F40/18.
II. Claims 17-20, drawn to String search, pattern matching, finding identical word or best match in a string, classified in G06F2207/025.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the limitations of searching in group II are not required by the claimed combination. The subcombination has separate utility such as text search and pattern matching.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Myrna Schelling on 3/17/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
The examiner acknowledges the present application claims foreign priority to Indian Patent Application IN202441004881, filed 1/24/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "receiving a spreadsheet document" in line 3. There is already “a spreadsheet document” introduced in the preamble, in line 2. It is unclear whether the “a spreadsheet document” in line 3 is the same or different than the “a spreadsheet document” in line 2. The Examiner interprets these to be the same spreadsheet document, and reads line 3 as “receiving [[a]] the spreadsheet document…” Claim 10 recites similar limitations.
Claim 2 recites “obscures the selected text fragment used to be while retaining a visual marker.” It is unclear to the Examiner what this means. There appears to be extra words in the claim. The Examiner interprets the limitation to read “obscures the selected text fragment
Claims 2-9 are dependent claims, and inherit the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections from claim 1.
Claims 11-16 are dependent claims, and inherit the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections from claim 10.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "Introducing Blackout 4.5: Enabling Character and Partial-Scope Redactions" 2 pages, uploaded November 22, 2022 by user "Milyli." Retrieved from the internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWcrOlSiOI0, in view of Schrichte, Patent Application Publication number US 20100070396 A1 (hereinafter “Schrichte”).
Claim 1: Milyli teaches “A computer-implemented method for redacting sensitive information within a spreadsheet document, the method comprising:
receiving a spreadsheet document containing a plurality of cells (Milyli Fig. 1 shows a project loading screen loading the spreadsheet “Edit Spreadsheet Markup Project” (note the spreadsheet icon to the left of the spreadsheet name). Milyli Fig. 2 shows a spreadsheet document);
providing, through a user interface, tools for selecting a text fragment within a… cell of the spreadsheet document (Milyli Fig. 1 shows a search tool for selecting text fragments to redact, including “Email Except Domain,” and “SSN Except Last 4”);
applying a redaction to the selected text fragment within the cell, wherein remaining content within the selected cell is unaffected by the redaction (Milyli Fig. 2 shows partially redacted cells, such as “[REDACTED]8882” for SSN and “[REDACTED]@ipsum.com” for Email);…”
Milyli is silent regarding a text fragment within a “selected” cell, and “converting the spreadsheet document into an output format, the output format incorporating the redaction in such a way that the redaction is non-reversible.”
Schrichte teaches “receiving a… document containing a plurality of cells (i.e. cells of a document [Schrichte 0038, Fig. 2-3, 8-9]);
providing, through a user interface, tools for selecting a text fragment within a selected cell of the… document (i.e. the redaction engine can identify the cells 18-29 in the original document 12, identify the cells 22, 23, 24 and 25 to be excluded based upon the rule set 32, and create the modified document 14 with the information in the cells 22-25 redacted [Schrichte 0040]… identification of cells and text in a document for a rule set can comprise, for example, a point and click procedure with a mouse [Schrichte 0049]);
applying a redaction to the selected text fragment within the cell, wherein remaining content within the selected cell is unaffected by the redaction (i.e. Referring also to FIG. 8, another portion of the arrest report document 12 is shown, specifically the Narrative of Arrest cell 29. Referring also to FIG. 9, which shows the cell 29 after automatic redaction by the redaction system 10, one embodiment of the invention can be used to redact sub-cells or text in a cell [Schrichte 0045, Fig. 8-9); and
converting the spreadsheet document into an output format, the output format incorporating the redaction in such a way that the redaction is non-reversible (i.e. convert the modified document from its common format 14' to a target format 14, such as a HTML, DOC, PDF [Schrichte 0051]).”
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 the invention/combination of Milyli to include the feature of having the ability to interact with a particular cell, and the ability to convert a document to PDF as disclosed by Schrichte.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to individually fine tune redactions for any cells after a “batch” change, or any redactions a “batch” change might miss. And the added benefit to prevent redactions from being reversed, and to prevent unauthorized editing of the document.
Claim 2: Milyli and Schrichte teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Milyli teaches “wherein the redaction obscures the selected text fragment used to be while retaining a visual marker to indicate a presence of redacted content (Milyli Fig. 2 shows partially redacted cells, such as “[REDACTED]8882” for SSN and “[REDACTED]@ipsum.com” for Email).” Schrichte teaches “wherein the redaction obscures the selected text fragment used to be while retaining a visual marker to indicate a presence of redacted content (Schrichte Fig. 3 shows “Section Redacted” visual marker, and Fig. 9 shows “Redacted” visual marker).”
One would have been motivated to combine Milyli and Schrichte, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to let the user know where in the document redactions have taken place, which provides spatial information (e.g. where, how many, how long/large) regarding the redactions in the document.
Claim 8: Milyli and Schrichte teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Schrichte teaches “wherein the output format is a PDF file (i.e. convert the modified document from its common format 14' to a target format 14, such as a HTML, DOC, PDF [Schrichte 0051]) and the text fragment includes the sensitive information (i.e. Referring also to FIG. 8, another portion of the arrest report document 12 is shown, specifically the Narrative of Arrest cell 29. Referring also to FIG. 9, which shows the cell 29 after automatic redaction by the redaction system 10, one embodiment of the invention can be used to redact sub-cells or text in a cell [Schrichte 0045, Fig. 8-9).”
One would have been motivated to combine Milyli and Schrichte, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to prevent sensitive information from being seen, and to prevent redactions from being reversed, and to prevent unauthorized editing of the document.
Claim 10: Milyli and Schrichte teach a system for redacting sensitive information within a spreadsheet document, comprising: one or more processors (i.e. a computer system [Schrichte 0057]); non-transitory computer-readable storage (i.e. computer-readable memory medium [Schrichte 0057]); and computer-executable instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage (i.e. Instructions of the computer program [Schrichte 0057]), that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milyli, in view of Schrichte, in view of McCloskey et al., Patent Number US 11250876 B1 (hereinafter “McCloskey”).
Claim 3: Milyli and Schrichte teach all the limitations of claim 2, above. Milyli and Schrichte are silent regarding “wherein the applying further comprises: replacing the selected text fragment with delimiters that maintain a structural integrity of the cell; and processing the delimiters when generating the output format, wherein the delimiters guide application of a visual redaction element.”
McCloskey teaches “wherein the applying further comprises:
replacing the selected text fragment with delimiters (i.e. replaces each word with a descriptor, such that in the above example, the processed sentence reads, “This is [[First Name]] [[Last Name]], my social security number is [[Social Security Number]].”… By using a unique delimiter around the replaced words, such as double brackets [McCloskey Col 7 lines 13-24, Fig. 3) that maintain a structural integrity of the cell (Examiner interprets this limitation as intended use); and
processing the delimiters when generating the output format, wherein the delimiters guide application of a visual redaction element (i.e. the anonymization, redaction and de-identification service 116 operates in a mode that redacts on a word-by-word basis and replaces each word with a descriptor, such that in the above example, the processed sentence reads, “This is [[First Name]] [[Last Name]], my social security number is [[Social Security Number]].” The latter mode is useful for a human reading the redacted text, in that the context of the removed text is provided. By using a unique delimiter around the replaced words, such as double brackets, a subsequent processing service (not depicted) can easily apply styling (e.g., bolding, highlighting, hyperlinking, etc.) to the modified text [McCloskey Col 7 lines 13-24, Fig. 3).”
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 the invention/combination of Milyli and Schrichte to include the feature of having the ability to replace text as disclosed by McCloskey.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of obscuring sensitive information, and still providing the context of the redaction to the user.
Claim 7: Milyli and Schrichte teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Milyli and Schrichte are silent regarding “further comprising receiving a reason associated with the redaction and embedding the reason into the output format.”
McCloskey teaches “further comprising receiving a reason associated with the redaction and embedding the reason into the output format (i.e. replaces each word with a descriptor, such that in the above example, the processed sentence reads, “This is [[First Name]] [[Last Name]], my social security number is [[Social Security Number]].”… By using a unique delimiter around the replaced words, such as double brackets [McCloskey Col 7 lines 13-24, Fig. 3] note: user chooses to use the redaction system as configured, so the reason is indicated by the user).”
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 the invention/combination of Milyli and Schrichte to include the feature of having the ability to replace text as disclosed by McCloskey.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of obscuring sensitive information, and still providing the context of the redaction to the user.
Claims 4-6, 9, 11, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milyli, in view of Schrichte, in view of Bellert, Patent Application Publication number US 20160224800 A1 (hereinafter “Bellert”).
Claim 4: Milyli and Schrichte teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Milyli and Schrichte are silent regarding “further comprising:
defining a bounding box associated with the selected text fragment, the bounding box including a start character of the bounding box and an end character of the bounding box; and processing the bounding box when generating the output format, including generating a redaction element in the output format based on the start character and the end character.”
Bellert teaches “further comprising:
defining a bounding box associated with the selected text fragment, the bounding box including a start character of the bounding box and an end character of the bounding box (i.e. a text box that displays sensitive data items: a social security number and an annual salary [Bellert 0044, Fig. 4-5]… the user highlights “123-45-6789” and “$1,000,000” to specify an instance of a sensitive data item [Bellert 0046]); and
processing the bounding box when generating the output format, including generating a redaction element in the output format based on the start character and the end character (i.e. black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items. Moreover, when rendered, these black rectangles will occupy approximately the same amount of space within the rendered ED as the sensitive data items. FIG. 5 shows the displayed redacted ED (504) [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]).”
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 the invention/combination of Milyli and Schrichte to include the feature of having the ability to determine a start and end point to redactions as disclosed by Bellert.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to specifically indicate where redactions begin and end, which more clearly assists the user in making redactions, which reduces user error.
Claim 5: Milyli and Schrichte and Bellert teach all the limitations of claim 4, above. Bellert teaches “wherein the selected text fragment is a plurality of selected text fragments each having an associated bounding box (i.e. a text box that displays sensitive data items: a social security number and an annual salary [Bellert 0044, Fig. 4-5]… the user highlights “123-45-6789” and “$1,000,000” to specify an instance of a sensitive data item [Bellert 0046]), wherein generating the redaction element in the output format comprises generating a redaction element for each selected text fragment based on the start character and the end character of the associated bounding box (i.e. black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items. Moreover, when rendered, these black rectangles will occupy approximately the same amount of space within the rendered ED as the sensitive data items. FIG. 5 shows the displayed redacted ED (504) [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]).”
One would have been motivated to combine Milyli and Schrichte and Bellert, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to specifically indicate where redactions begin and end, which more clearly assists the user in making redactions, which reduces user error.
Claim 6: Milyli and Schrichte teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Milyli and Schrichte are silent regarding “further comprising providing a selection of redaction types, the selection including at least one of: a solid redaction type and a translucent redaction type.”
Bellert teaches “further comprising providing a selection of redaction types, the selection including at least one of: a solid redaction type (i.e. black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items. Moreover, when rendered, these black rectangles will occupy approximately the same amount of space within the rendered ED as the sensitive data items. FIG. 5 shows the displayed redacted ED (504) [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]) and a translucent redaction type (Bellert Fig. 4 shows translucent bounding boxes).”
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 the invention/combination of Milyli and Schrichte to include the feature of having the ability to have both a transparent box and an opaque box as disclosed by Bellert.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to see what will be redacted before it is obscured.
Claim 9: Milyli and Schrichte teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Milyli and Schrichte are silent regarding “wherein the redaction is applied in response to user selection of the text fragment through one of the following user interface actions: highlighting the text fragment; right-clicking the text fragment and selecting a redaction option from a context menu; applying a keyboard shortcut associated with a redaction type.”
Bellert teaches “wherein the redaction is applied in response to user selection of the text fragment through one of the following user interface actions:
highlighting the text fragment (i.e. the user highlights “123-45-6789” and “$1,000,000” to specify an instance of a sensitive data item [Bellert 0046]… black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]);
right-clicking the text fragment and selecting a redaction option from a context menu;
applying a keyboard shortcut associated with a redaction type.”
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 the invention/combination of Milyli and Schrichte to include the feature of having the ability to select redacted sections as disclosed by Bellert.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to specifically indicate where redactions begin and end, which more clearly assists the user in making redactions, which reduces user error.
Claim 11: Milyli and Schrichte teach all the limitations of claim 10, above. Milyli and Schrichte are silent regarding “wherein the instructions further cause the system to provide a translucent redaction overlay, enabling visibility of the redacted text fragment while indicating presence of redaction.”
Bellert teaches “wherein the instructions further cause the system to provide a translucent redaction overlay, enabling visibility of the redacted text fragment while indicating presence of redaction (i.e. a text box that displays sensitive data items: a social security number and an annual salary [Bellert 0044, Fig. 4-5]… the user highlights “123-45-6789” and “$1,000,000” to specify an instance of a sensitive data item [Bellert 0046] note: transparent bounding box in Fig. 4)”
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 the invention/combination of Milyli and Schrichte to include the feature of having the ability to select redacted sections as disclosed by Bellert.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to specifically indicate where redactions begin and end, which more clearly assists the user in making redactions, which reduces user error.
Claim 15: Milyli and Schrichte teach all the limitations of claim 11, above. Milyli and Schrichte are silent regarding “wherein the instructions further cause the system to:
define a bounding box associated with the selected text fragment, the bounding box including a start character of the bounding box and an end character of the bounding box; and process the bounding box when generating the output format including generating a redaction element in the output format based on the start character and the end character.”
Bellert teaches “wherein the instructions further cause the system to:
define a bounding box associated with the selected text fragment, the bounding box including a start character of the bounding box and an end character of the bounding box (i.e. a text box that displays sensitive data items: a social security number and an annual salary [Bellert 0044, Fig. 4-5]… the user highlights “123-45-6789” and “$1,000,000” to specify an instance of a sensitive data item [Bellert 0046]); and
process the bounding box when generating the output format including generating a redaction element in the output format based on the start character and the end character (i.e. black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items. Moreover, when rendered, these black rectangles will occupy approximately the same amount of space within the rendered ED as the sensitive data items. FIG. 5 shows the displayed redacted ED (504) [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]).”
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 the invention/combination of Milyli and Schrichte to include the feature of having the ability to determine a start and end point to redactions as disclosed by Bellert.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to specifically indicate where redactions begin and end, which more clearly assists the user in making redactions, which reduces user error.
Claim 16: Milyli and Schrichte and Bellert teach all the limitations of claim 15, above. Bellert teaches “wherein the selected text fragment is a plurality of selected text fragments each having an associated bounding box (i.e. a text box that displays sensitive data items: a social security number and an annual salary [Bellert 0044, Fig. 4-5]… the user highlights “123-45-6789” and “$1,000,000” to specify an instance of a sensitive data item [Bellert 0046]), wherein the instructions further cause the system to generate a redaction element for each selected text fragment based on the start character and the end character of the associated bounding box (i.e. black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items. Moreover, when rendered, these black rectangles will occupy approximately the same amount of space within the rendered ED as the sensitive data items. FIG. 5 shows the displayed redacted ED (504) [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]).”
One would have been motivated to combine Milyli and Schrichte and Bellert, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to specifically indicate where redactions begin and end, which more clearly assists the user in making redactions, which reduces user error.
Claims 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milyli, in view of Schrichte, in view of Bellert, in view of McCloskey.
Claim 12: Milyli and Schrichte and Bellert teach all the limitations of claim 11, above. Milyli and Schrichte and Bellert are silent regarding “wherein the instructions further cause the system to replace the selected text fragment with delimiters and to process the delimiters during output file generation to guide application of the redaction.”
McCloskey teaches “wherein the instructions further cause the system to replace the selected text fragment with delimiters and to process the delimiters during output file generation to guide application of the redaction (i.e. the anonymization, redaction and de-identification service 116 operates in a mode that redacts on a word-by-word basis and replaces each word with a descriptor, such that in the above example, the processed sentence reads, “This is [[First Name]] [[Last Name]], my social security number is [[Social Security Number]].” The latter mode is useful for a human reading the redacted text, in that the context of the removed text is provided. By using a unique delimiter around the replaced words, such as double brackets, a subsequent processing service (not depicted) can easily apply styling (e.g., bolding, highlighting, hyperlinking, etc.) to the modified text [McCloskey Col 7 lines 13-24, Fig. 3).”
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 the invention/combination of Milyli and Schrichte and Bellert to include the feature of having the ability to replace text as disclosed by McCloskey.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of obscuring sensitive information, and still providing the context of the redaction to the user.
Claim 13: Milyli and Schrichte and Bellert and McCloskey teach all the limitations of claim 12, above. Bellert teaches “further comprising a component that allows the user to select between a solid redaction type (i.e. black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items. Moreover, when rendered, these black rectangles will occupy approximately the same amount of space within the rendered ED as the sensitive data items. FIG. 5 shows the displayed redacted ED (504) [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]) and a translucent redaction type (Bellert Fig. 4 shows translucent bounding boxes).”
One would have been motivated to combine Milyli and Schrichte and Bellert and McCloskey, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to see what will be redacted before it is obscured.
Claim 14: Milyli and Schrichte and Bellert and McCloskey teach all the limitations of claim 13, above. McCloskey teaches “wherein the instructions further cause the system to receive and store a redaction reason indicated by the user, the reason being associated with the embedded redaction in the output file (i.e. replaces each word with a descriptor, such that in the above example, the processed sentence reads, “This is [[First Name]] [[Last Name]], my social security number is [[Social Security Number]].”… By using a unique delimiter around the replaced words, such as double brackets [McCloskey Col 7 lines 13-24, Fig. 3] note: user chooses to use the redaction system as configured, so the reason is indicated by the user).”
One would have been motivated to combine Milyli and Schrichte and Bellert and McCloskey, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of obscuring sensitive information, and still providing the context of the redaction to the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hussain (US 20070300306 A1) listed on 892 is related to redaction, specifically using delimiters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179